From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Heinz.Egger@linutronix.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, tim.bird@am.sony.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka checkpointing) support
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:49:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FACEEA1.9020400@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336733182.2625.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]
Am 11.05.2012 12:46, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:33 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> First of all, yes it's fully backward-compatible. It uses two new internal volume IDs
>> with compat = UBI_COMPAT_DELETE.
>> Old UBI implementations will delete the checkpoint and continue with scanning...
>
> OK. BTW, these patches do not compile when the fastmap is disabled. I
> hope you'll just kill the ifdefs in the next revision and this problem
> will go away.
It builds fine here with CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT=n.
What error do you get?
>> Regarding design, ubi_wl_get_peb() currently offers three types of data types.
>> UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN. Do we really need them?
>> Checkpointing has a pool of unknown PEBs. This PEBs have to be scanned while attaching.
>> For now I had to create three pools (for UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN).
>> This makes the whole thing complexer than needed.
>> It introduces also some nasty corner cases.
>
> But AFAIR we already agreed that we kill these, no? I thought you'll
> send a separate patch for this. We do not need this feature and to our
> shame it even was not working and there was a bug found very recently.
Perfect!
I was confused and thought that this feature will be removed later...
Thanks,
//richard
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, tim.bird@am.sony.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Heinz.Egger@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka checkpointing) support
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:49:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FACEEA1.9020400@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336733182.2625.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]
Am 11.05.2012 12:46, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:33 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> First of all, yes it's fully backward-compatible. It uses two new internal volume IDs
>> with compat = UBI_COMPAT_DELETE.
>> Old UBI implementations will delete the checkpoint and continue with scanning...
>
> OK. BTW, these patches do not compile when the fastmap is disabled. I
> hope you'll just kill the ifdefs in the next revision and this problem
> will go away.
It builds fine here with CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT=n.
What error do you get?
>> Regarding design, ubi_wl_get_peb() currently offers three types of data types.
>> UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN. Do we really need them?
>> Checkpointing has a pool of unknown PEBs. This PEBs have to be scanned while attaching.
>> For now I had to create three pools (for UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN).
>> This makes the whole thing complexer than needed.
>> It introduces also some nasty corner cases.
>
> But AFAIR we already agreed that we kill these, no? I thought you'll
> send a separate patch for this. We do not need this feature and to our
> shame it even was not working and there was a bug found very recently.
Perfect!
I was confused and thought that this feature will be removed later...
Thanks,
//richard
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-11 10:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-09 17:38 [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka checkpointing) support Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 1/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 11:17 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 11:17 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 12:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 12:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 12:21 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 12:21 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 17:15 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 17:15 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 18:56 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 18:56 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 19:15 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 19:15 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 2/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint struct to ubi_device Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] UBI: Export next_sqnum() Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 4/7] [RFC] UBI: Export compare_lebs() Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 5/7] [RFC] UBI: Make wl subsystem checkpoint aware Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 6/7] [RFC] UBI: Implement checkpointing support Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` [PATCH 7/7] [RFC] UBI: wire up checkpointing Richard Weinberger
2012-05-09 17:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-10 4:26 ` [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka checkpointing) support Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-10 4:26 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-10 8:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-10 8:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 10:46 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 10:46 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 10:49 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2012-05-11 10:49 ` Richard Weinberger
2012-05-11 11:26 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-05-11 11:26 ` 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=4FACEEA1.9020400@nod.at \
--to=richard@nod.at \
--cc=Heinz.Egger@linutronix.de \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--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.