From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171] helo=mgw-ext12.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HWrQE-0001ZT-Jb for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:00:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [JFFS2] Prevent list corruption when handling write errors From: Artem Bityutskiy To: joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se In-Reply-To: <1175161973.2135.1.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> References: <460B722F.9020604@nokia.com> <1175161973.2135.1.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:59:42 +0300 Message-Id: <1175162382.19966.11.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Adrian Hunter Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:52 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:00 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > If a write error occurs, the affected block is placed on the > > bad_used_list. In the case that the write error occured > > when writing summary data the block was also being placed on > > the dirty_list, which caused list corruption and ultimately > > a soft lockup in jffs2_mark_node_obsolete. This fixes that. >=20 > I thougth that node obsoleting was disabled when summary is active? Of course not. On-flash obsoleting is disabled, but not in-RAM. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)