From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZSfSV-00020R-GW for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:05:47 +0000 Message-ID: <55D6BE42.6090507@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:59:30 +0800 From: Dongsheng Yang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger , , , , CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/35] ubifs: extend budget for blocks References: <1438235311-23788-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1438235311-23788-15-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <55BFD56B.3070904@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <55BFD56B.3070904@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 08/04/2015 04:56 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 30.07.2015 um 07:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang: >> Currently, budget subsystem in ubifs are working on budgeting [...] >> #endif >> + unsigned int new_block_num; >> + unsigned int dirtied_block_num; > > Why are these not under UBIFS_DEBUG? > I like the overflow checks. Sorry for the late reply. I did not find the overflow checks in my reading. Could you help to explain what kind of the check is it? and why we define in different way with UBIFS_DEBUG defined or not. And, Where did we define the UBIFS_DEBUG? I did not get the design of this macro. :( Yang > > Thanks, > //richard > . >