Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support skipping a certain number of good blocks

[Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>]

On Wednesday 07 December 2016 at 09:53:49 +0100, David Oberhollenzer wrote:
> Since both tools already have a --start[address] option to specify an offset,
> wouldn't it make more sense for your case to add a flag that this offset should
> not include bad blocks? IMO this would remove the ambiguity of having two
> different offset options.

I agree that having two options isn't exactly clear. However, being able to
specify both a start address and a skip offset together might be useful if
the partition table is incorrect (this may occur during upgrades to a
bootloader version that uses a different partition table.)

But, if you'd prefer a separate option I can have a go at implementing
that.

> For both tools, instead of skipping bad blocks on the fly, it would IMO be cleaner
> if you could add a simple check that iterates over the erase blocks ahead of time
> and adjusts the offset if a block is bad. Then you wouldn't have to change the
> later checks or add additional clutches to the already cluttered read/write loop.

I tried to make my changes as minimal as possible, but you are correct that
it just makes the complex main loop even worse. I did initially try to scan
first but decided against that idea for reasons I've now forgotten. I'll
have another go at it.

Thanks for the review.

Mike.