On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 09:23 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> I started to implement that too but unfortunately never had the time
> to
> finish it :-(.
> Don't know why you were trying to move to kzalloc-ed buffer, but my
> goal was to avoid the extra copy when the controller transfers data
> using
On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 09:23 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> I started to implement that too but unfortunately never had the time
> to
> finish it :-(.
> Don't know why you were trying to move to kzalloc-ed buffer, but my
> goal was to avoid the extra copy when the controller transfers data
> using
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:09:34 +0200
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 21:52 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > We should better think about how to get ubi_self_check_all_ff()
> > fixed.
> > When enabled on a modern NAND, vmalloc() is likely to fail now and
> >
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:09:34 +0200
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 21:52 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > We should better think about how to get ubi_self_check_all_ff()
> > fixed.
> > When enabled on a modern NAND, vmalloc() is likely to fail now and
> > then
> > since len
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 21:52 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> We should better think about how to get ubi_self_check_all_ff()
> fixed.
> When enabled on a modern NAND, vmalloc() is likely to fail now and
> then
> since len is the erase block size and can be up to a few mega bytes.
I did an
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 21:52 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> We should better think about how to get ubi_self_check_all_ff()
> fixed.
> When enabled on a modern NAND, vmalloc() is likely to fail now and
> then
> since len is the erase block size and can be up to a few mega bytes.
I did an
On 12/04/2016 09:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 13:48 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
>>> From: Pan Bian
>>>
>>> When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
>>> we cannot make sure that only
On 12/04/2016 09:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 13:48 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
>>> From: Pan Bian
>>>
>>> When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
>>> we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present
On 04.12.2016 21:33, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c
> []
>>> @@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ int ubi_self_check_all_ff(struct ubi_device *ubi, int
>>> pnum, int offset, int len)
>>> buf = __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
>>> if (!buf) {
>>>
On 04.12.2016 21:33, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c
> []
>>> @@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ int ubi_self_check_all_ff(struct ubi_device *ubi, int
>>> pnum, int offset, int len)
>>> buf = __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
>>> if (!buf) {
>>>
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 13:48 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
> > From: Pan Bian
> >
> > When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
> > we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
> >
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 13:48 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
> > From: Pan Bian
> >
> > When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
> > we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
> > returning 0 seems
On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
> From: Pan Bian
>
> When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
> we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
> returning 0 seems improper.
>
> Bugzilla:
On 12/04/2016 07:12 AM, Pan Bian wrote:
> From: Pan Bian
>
> When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
> we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
> returning 0 seems improper.
>
> Bugzilla:
From: Pan Bian
When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
returning 0 seems improper.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189081
Signed-off-by: Pan Bian
From: Pan Bian
When __vmalloc() returns a NULL pointer, the region is not checked, and
we cannot make sure that only 0xFF bytes are present at offset. Thus,
returning 0 seems improper.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189081
Signed-off-by: Pan Bian
---
16 matches
Mail list logo