Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] MTD: UBI: wire up checkpointing

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 19.02.2012 14:57, schrieb Shmulik Ladkani:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:06:46 +0100 Richard Weinberger<rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT
> > +static int attach_by_checkpointing(struct ubi_device *ubi)
> > +{
> > +	int cp_start, err;
> > +	struct ubi_scan_info *si;
> > +
> > +	cp_start = ubi_find_checkpoint(ubi);
> > +	if (cp_start<  0)
> > +		return -ENOENT;
> > +
> > +	si = ubi_read_checkpoint(ubi, cp_start);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(si))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(si);
> > +
> > +	ubi->bad_peb_count = 0;
> > +	ubi->good_peb_count = ubi->peb_count;
>
> Zero reported bad PEBs when checkpointing.
> Seems that checkpointing does not remember number/location of bad PEBs.

Currently checkpointing cares only about used and free PEBs.
Bad PEBs are no longer visible to UBI after recovering from a checkpoint.

> Are we fine with that?

This patch is a RFC. :-)

> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT
> > +	err = attach_by_checkpointing(ubi);
> > +
> > +	if (err) {
> > +		if (err != -ENOENT)
> > +			ubi_msg("falling back to attach by scanning mode!\n");
> > +
> > +		err = attach_by_scanning(ubi);
> > +	}
>
> Code does not fit error message.
> Message states "falling back to scanning" only if "err != -ENOENT".
> However code calls 'attach_by_scanning' regardless 'err'.
> Was it your intention?

Yes.
If recovering from a checkpoint fails the corresponding code prints
a human readable error message in any case.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/