All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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: [PATCH 1/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:15:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FAD493F.1040804@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336738864.2625.66.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

Am 11.05.2012 14:21, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
>>> It is weird that you do not have an array of ECs instead for _every_
>>> PEB. Why wasting the flash and time writing/reading this data?
>>
>> By array of ECs you mean that all ec values are written to the flash
>> and pnum is the index?
>> Sounds sane.
> 
> Yes, to me it sounds like the only sane way, unless there is a strong
> reason to have redundant "pnum" fields. :-)

While looking at my own code a bit closer I found out why I haven't used the
array approach. B-)
Currently only ec values for PEBs within the free and used list are stored.
Therefore, the array can have gaps. E.g. If PEB X is in the erroneous list.

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: [PATCH 1/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:15:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FAD493F.1040804@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336738864.2625.66.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

Am 11.05.2012 14:21, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
>>> It is weird that you do not have an array of ECs instead for _every_
>>> PEB. Why wasting the flash and time writing/reading this data?
>>
>> By array of ECs you mean that all ec values are written to the flash
>> and pnum is the index?
>> Sounds sane.
> 
> Yes, to me it sounds like the only sane way, unless there is a strong
> reason to have redundant "pnum" fields. :-)

While looking at my own code a bit closer I found out why I haven't used the
array approach. B-)
Currently only ec values for PEBs within the free and used list are stored.
Therefore, the array can have gaps. E.g. If PEB X is in the erroneous list.

Thanks,
//richard


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-11 17:15 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 [this message]
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
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=4FAD493F.1040804@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.