Re: [PATCH] mkfs.ubifs: remove the check for UBIFS_MAX_LEB_SZ

[Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 08/24/2015 03:05 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 14:37 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> On 08/24/2015 02:32 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 09:07 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>>>> On 08/18/2015 04:52 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 12:52 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>>>>>> There is a commit 92ed6c0 to increase UBIFS_MAX_LEB_SZ
>>>>>> to 2MiB. But recently, as the leb size become larger and
>>>>>> larger, 2MiB is not a suitable limit any more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then remove this check in mkfs.ubifs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> NOTE:
>>>>>> 	I am not sure the reason why we have to
>>>>>> limit the leb size in mkfs.ubifs. Because
>>>>>> I did not find any reason for it, I send
>>>>>> this patch out. It's very possible I am
>>>>>> mising something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, this is sanity check for the user input. If you
>>>>> accidentally
>>>>> added few zeroes, we want to spot this and inform you, and you
>>>>> may
>>>>> appreciate that we did not just created a bugus image for you.
>>>>> That's
>>>>> the idea.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Artem, I was trying to understand it, but I did not got
>>>> the
>>>> point. Could you give me some more information about the idea?
>>>> Maybe
>>>> an example?
>>>
>>> Well, this is defensive programming concept.
>>
>> Ha, okey, got it. That's good.
>>
>> But I got a device with ped_size=32M. (Although that would affect
>> ubi/ubifs performance negatively, that's another topic) I am
>> not sure increasing the MAX_LEB_SIZE to 32M is a good idea, at least
>> I don't think it's convincing to others that "I have a device with
>> 32M
>> peb, so I will increase it to 32M". Could you give me some more
>> suggestion?
>
> Well, defensive programming is just a generally useful concept, it
> helps to reveal problems, rather than help them hide.
>
> But sometimes it stands on your way, in which case you need to relax
> the defense. I already suggested to change the constant to the size you
> need. I'd appreciate also a comment telling about the system which
> needs 32MiB, if possible.

Got it. Thanx

Yang
>
> Artem.
> .
>