Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > What do you mean? It is internal version just for future help: if we
> > develop incompatible UBI2 the old UBI will reject the new images.
> 
> In that case it's not an *implementation* version number, but rather
> an on-disk *format* version number. 

True, will refine the comment.

>  There's a difference.  It's also
> often not used much, since another way of dealing with the problem is
> to mark major each on-disk version with a different magic number.

The advantage of version is that UBI can distinguish between garbage and
incompatible image. If I meet wrong magic - what is it - rubbish,
corrupted header? Should I run recovery procedure? Having version is
just cleaner.

> Why isn't this being done via #define?  It's not like this is any kind
> of an enumerated type, especially since it's being installed into a
> 32bit type, and not even an enum type.

Will be fixed, thanks.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (ÐÐÑÑÑÐÐÐ ÐÑÑÑÐ)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/