From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: xiaolei li Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libmtd: Add support to access OOB available size Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:25:39 +0800 Message-ID: <1523258739.14673.7.camel@mhfsdcap03> References: <1523243410-65424-1-git-send-email-xiaolei.li@mediatek.com> <1523243410-65424-2-git-send-email-xiaolei.li@mediatek.com> <99d17022-0b07-a999-b6ac-05b51df7d18d@sigma-star.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <99d17022-0b07-a999-b6ac-05b51df7d18d-S6VGOU4v5edDinCvNWH78Q@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: David Oberhollenzer Cc: boris.brezillon-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, srv_heupstream-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Hi David, On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 08:58 +0200, David Oberhollenzer wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/09/2018 05:10 AM, Xiaolei Li wrote: > > @@ -769,6 +774,8 @@ int mtd_get_dev_info1(libmtd_t desc, int mtd_num, struct mtd_dev_info *mtd) > > return -1; > > if (dev_read_pos_int(lib->mtd_oob_size, mtd_num, &mtd->oob_size)) > > return -1; > > + if (dev_read_pos_int(lib->mtd_oobavail, mtd_num, &mtd->oobavail)) > > + return -1; > > if (dev_read_pos_int(lib->mtd_region_cnt, mtd_num, &mtd->region_cnt)) > > return -1; > > if (dev_read_hex_int(lib->mtd_flags, mtd_num, &ret)) > > I'm not sure if it is a good idea to do a hard fail here, since this > depends on a recent change to the kernel. > > It might be preferable to catch and handle ENOENT, otherwise the next > release of mtd-utils will only work on the next kernel release onward. > Yes, it is. The hard fail return here seems not good. > Maybe mtd_oobavail could to be set to some reasonable default that > retains the current behaviour on "older" kernels? > What about setting 0 as default? Thanks, Xiaolei > > Thanks, > > David