All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@huawei.com>
To: <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	computersforpeace@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:03:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54530A29.9070208@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414659349.23185.27.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>

On 2014/10/30 16:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 19:43 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This is more a cosmetic change than a fix.
>> By using ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
>> we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always
>> correct and we don't really need the second one anymore.
>> But we have to keep the second one to not break anything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> 
> Yeah, this atomic change stuff was added later, and we had not
> envisioned originally. Your patch adds robustness, but makes volume
> creation slower, which is probably not a problem.
> 
> I've added a small comment and pushed it, thanks!
> 
> Artem
> 
> 

Hi Artem and Richard,

We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node
in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they
are changed with atomic operation.

I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do
you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just
what to know if I missed something. Could you please take
some time to explain that?

Thanks very much~!

Hu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@huawei.com>
To: <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	<dwmw2@infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:03:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54530A29.9070208@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414659349.23185.27.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>

On 2014/10/30 16:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 19:43 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This is more a cosmetic change than a fix.
>> By using ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
>> we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always
>> correct and we don't really need the second one anymore.
>> But we have to keep the second one to not break anything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> 
> Yeah, this atomic change stuff was added later, and we had not
> envisioned originally. Your patch adds robustness, but makes volume
> creation slower, which is probably not a problem.
> 
> I've added a small comment and pushed it, thanks!
> 
> Artem
> 
> 

Hi Artem and Richard,

We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node
in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they
are changed with atomic operation.

I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do
you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just
what to know if I missed something. Could you please take
some time to explain that?

Thanks very much~!

Hu



  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-31  4:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-25 17:43 [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change() Richard Weinberger
2014-10-25 17:43 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-10-30  8:55 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-10-30  8:55   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-10-31  4:03   ` hujianyang [this message]
2014-10-31  4:03     ` hujianyang
2014-10-31  8:09     ` Richard Weinberger
2014-10-31  8:09       ` Richard Weinberger
2014-10-31 10:45       ` hujianyang
2014-10-31 10:45         ` hujianyang
2014-10-31 10:57         ` Richard Weinberger
2014-10-31 10:57           ` Richard Weinberger

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=54530A29.9070208@huawei.com \
    --to=hujianyang@huawei.com \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    /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.