From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com ([209.85.161.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PjElJ-0004Ye-GT for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:39:02 +0000 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so5009125fxm.36 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:38:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: ubifs_scan() error handling From: Artem Bityutskiy To: twebb In-Reply-To: References: <1278995289.16634.126.camel@localhost> <1278995528.16634.129.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:38:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1296322698.2400.10.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 Fri, 2011-01-28 at 12:13 -0500, twebb wrote: > It's been awhile but I wanted to reopen the discussion on this topic. > Could you take a look at this proposed patch? Essentially this change > results in the LEB being cleaned/recovered regardless of whether > is_last_write() is true or not. There may be a better way to do this > earlier in the same function, but I'm not familiar enough with it to > know the significance of the is_last_write() call. But I think I explained why this check is there. Why exactly it does not work for your flash? I think you need to get better understanding what is happening in your case. I am reluctant to take this patch because it is more of a band-aid but not a proper solution. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)