From: Richard Weinberger <rw@linutronix.de>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, tim.bird@am.sony.com,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dedekind1@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] MTD: UBI: wire up checkpointing
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:08:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F41026C.6060203@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120219155741.4c2f0a02@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Am 19.02.2012 14:57, schrieb Shmulik Ladkani:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:06:46 +0100 Richard Weinberger<rw@linutronix.de> 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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Weinberger <rw@linutronix.de>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
dedekind1@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tim.bird@am.sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] MTD: UBI: wire up checkpointing
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:08:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F41026C.6060203@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120219155741.4c2f0a02@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Am 19.02.2012 14:57, schrieb Shmulik Ladkani:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:06:46 +0100 Richard Weinberger<rw@linutronix.de> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-19 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-14 20:06 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-07 16:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 16:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 21:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-07 22:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-07 22:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-07 22:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-07 22:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint struct to ubi_device Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] MTD: UBI: Export next_sqnum() Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] MTD: UBI: Make wl subsystem checkpoint aware Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] MTD: UBI: Make process_eb() " Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] MTD: UBI: Implement checkpointing support Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-20 16:31 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-20 16:31 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-14 20:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] MTD: UBI: wire up checkpointing Richard Weinberger
2012-02-14 20:06 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-19 13:57 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-19 13:57 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-19 14:08 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2012-02-19 14:08 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-19 14:40 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-19 14:40 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-02-19 15:08 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-19 15:08 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-29 11:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support Artem Bityutskiy
2012-02-29 11:35 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-02-29 11:36 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-02-29 11:36 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-02-29 11:40 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-02-29 12:01 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-02-29 12:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 16:04 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 16:04 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 21:01 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-07 21:01 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-08 11:22 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-08 11:22 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 16:33 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 16:33 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-07 21:19 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-07 21:19 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-08 7:08 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-03-08 7:08 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-03-08 9:21 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-08 9:21 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-03-08 11:58 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-08 11:58 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-08 13:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-03-08 13:16 ` Shmulik Ladkani
2012-03-08 11:54 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-03-08 11:54 ` Artem Bityutskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F41026C.6060203@linutronix.de \
--to=rw@linutronix.de \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.bird@am.sony.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.