From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OYXF4-0003du-Ow for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:37:16 +0000 Subject: Re: ubifs_scan() error handling From: Artem Bityutskiy To: twebb In-Reply-To: <1278995289.16634.126.camel@localhost> References: <1278995289.16634.126.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:32:08 +0300 Message-ID: <1278995528.16634.129.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Lei Wen , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 07:28 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Would it make sense and be acceptable to make this call any time > > ubifs_scan() returns an error? > > May be. I'll think and return to you. We can probably go for it, but the current recovery is not enough for MLC anyway. So I'd prefer to do the change you propose as a part of larger UBIFS on MLC patch-set. Please, analyse ubifs_recover_leb(), find out what should be changed there for MLC, send a patch-set. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)