Re: [PATCH] UBI: introduce sequential counter

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>]

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 07:12 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> If writing zeroes to the field for all LEBs is valid, then I don't think
> the tools need updating.  At least not the image creation tools.  We've
> already declared the padding fields to be zero filled.
> 
> The unubi tool will need updating though.

They should be updated because they should generate unique numbers to
the sqnum field, do not use old 'leb_ver' stuff, because leb_ver stuff
will go away eventually, say, in a year. Also boot-loaders should be
eventually updated.

> > When I move a PEB with low EC, and I need to pick the target PEB (T),
> > where I move the data to. I pick T with the highest EC if the data is
> > old, and I pick T with an average EC if the data is fresh.
> 
> If you replace "old" with "stale" I agree.  My stupid english thinking
> brain equates "old" with the passage of time, and that isn't what sqnum
> is tracking.  It is valid to use stale though.

Just treat the steadily increasing sequential number as a kind of UBI
time, then my terminology start making sense.

> Ah, aligned within on a 64-bit boundary... I see.  Looks odd, but ok.

Nothing odd, actually. I do not want to deal with unaligned addresses.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)