From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com (Shmulik Ladkani)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:16:00 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
In-Reply-To: <1342608053.7530.11.camel@brekeke>
References: <1341389164-24409-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
 <1341389164-24409-2-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
 <1342608053.7530.11.camel@brekeke>
Message-ID: <20120719091600.7d55dadb@pixies.home.jungo.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:53 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig
> changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the
> series.

Wouldn't having the defconfig change as the last patch break things for
those defconfigs that had explicitly set CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
other than the default?

Meaning, if the one-before-last would be "kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE",
then those defconfigs that had _explicitly_ set a BEB_RESERVE value,
which do not YET set a BEB_LIMIT value, will have their BEB_LIMIT as
the default - but they actually meant a specific value other than the
default.

This is why I tried to:
- set the CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT in defconfigs as part of the commit
  which introduces this config (copy same value as their RESERVE config)
- kill all CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE references from defconfigs as part
  of the commit which kills it

Regards,
Shmulik