All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@huawei.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com,
	dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dedekind1@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:45:08 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54536834.1020005@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <545343CA.7080507@nod.at>

On 2014/10/31 16:09, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Hujianyang,
> 
> Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang:
>> 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?
> 
> I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question.
> 
> If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations
> would break as they assume we have two.
> 
> Thanks,
> //richard
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> 
> 

This question is basing on your comment for this patch:

"""
we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always
correct and we don't really need the second one anymore.
"""

I think that means one PEB is enough in your considering.
So I want to know if you are sure about this. Because
we use two leb for master_node in ubifs-level. So maybe
VTBL is like super_node, not master_node, right?

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@huawei.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: <dedekind1@gmail.com>, <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	<computersforpeace@gmail.com>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:45:08 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54536834.1020005@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <545343CA.7080507@nod.at>

On 2014/10/31 16:09, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Hujianyang,
> 
> Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang:
>> 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?
> 
> I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question.
> 
> If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations
> would break as they assume we have two.
> 
> Thanks,
> //richard
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> 
> 

This question is basing on your comment for this patch:

"""
we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always
correct and we don't really need the second one anymore.
"""

I think that means one PEB is enough in your considering.
So I want to know if you are sure about this. Because
we use two leb for master_node in ubifs-level. So maybe
VTBL is like super_node, not master_node, right?


  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-31 10:45 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
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 [this message]
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=54536834.1020005@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.