Re: linux equivalent of u-boot's "nand scrub" (erasing blocks even when OOB says "bad")

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 00:03 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 02:32, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:53 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> the logical thing in my mind would be to extend the userspace mtd abi
> >> to allow a "do the erase even if people think it's bad" option.
> >> perhaps MEMSCRUB ?
> >
> > If you do this, please do not use this name. In UBI we already use term
> > 'scrubbing' for the process when we move contents of eraseblock because
> > we have bit-flips.
> 
> that doesnt sound like scrubbing at all, but too late now i guess to fix

Not sure, I'm not native English speaker, and actually that was not me
who called the process this way.

> > It will be confusing if the same word is used in MTD for "unmarking"
> > eraseblocks. How about: 'force erase' or 'bad erase' ?
> 
> that makes it sound like an option to the existing MEMERASE operation.
>  so i guess what if we just do that -- extend the erase_info_user
> structure to contain a flags field and add a MEMERASE2 that works with
> the larger structure ?  for now we'd only have one option (FORCE), but
> it makes it easy to extend in the future.

Ohh, this was so stupid of me to not ask people to add extra fields to
'struct erase_info_user64' which was introduced relatively recently... I
always add extra fields to ioctl data structures...

But yeah, what you say sounds ok to me.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)