From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1S5dD5-0003nR-JJ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:16:48 +0000 Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so302768wgb.18 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:16:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:16:40 +0200 From: Shmulik Ladkani To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support Message-ID: <20120308151640.0a7aa240@halley> In-Reply-To: <1331207881.7257.37.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> References: <1329250006-22944-1-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> <1331138007.3463.16.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4F57D0C4.1050605@linutronix.de> <20120308090835.032fe13a@pixies.home.jungo.com> <4F587A28.6080205@linutronix.de> <1331207881.7257.37.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger , tim.bird@am.sony.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:58:01 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > To write the ubibis and to ubibis? Hmm... not sure. > > To write the fastmap and to fastmap or decide to not fastmap because all > PEBs within the first 64 have too high erasecounter? Sounds better IMO. FWIW, fastmap sounds reasonable to me. (aside from the fact that "fast" is the outcome of using the map, whereas the map's definition is essentially a peb/leb map). Anyways, CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP, ubi_find_fastmap(), ubi_scan_fastmap(), ubi_read_fastmap(), ubi_update_fastmap() ... all seem pretty explanatory IMO. Using plain "map" (ubi_find_map, ubi_update_map) might also be an option, however it might be less obvious. Regards, Shmulik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755171Ab2CHNQs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:16:48 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:47400 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751404Ab2CHNQq (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:16:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:16:40 +0200 From: Shmulik Ladkani To: dedekind1@gmail.com Cc: Richard Weinberger , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.bird@am.sony.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support Message-ID: <20120308151640.0a7aa240@halley> In-Reply-To: <1331207881.7257.37.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> References: <1329250006-22944-1-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> <1331138007.3463.16.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4F57D0C4.1050605@linutronix.de> <20120308090835.032fe13a@pixies.home.jungo.com> <4F587A28.6080205@linutronix.de> <1331207881.7257.37.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:58:01 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > To write the ubibis and to ubibis? Hmm... not sure. > > To write the fastmap and to fastmap or decide to not fastmap because all > PEBs within the first 64 have too high erasecounter? Sounds better IMO. FWIW, fastmap sounds reasonable to me. (aside from the fact that "fast" is the outcome of using the map, whereas the map's definition is essentially a peb/leb map). Anyways, CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP, ubi_find_fastmap(), ubi_scan_fastmap(), ubi_read_fastmap(), ubi_update_fastmap() ... all seem pretty explanatory IMO. Using plain "map" (ubi_find_map, ubi_update_map) might also be an option, however it might be less obvious. Regards, Shmulik