From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PnukC-0008Vb-Uj for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:17:13 +0000 Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so2462829wyf.36 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:17:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Testing a device using mtd_stresstest From: Artem Bityutskiy To: David Peverley In-Reply-To: References: <1297002281.4460.6.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:16:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1297437362.2760.57.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Karl Beldan , 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, 2011-02-11 at 14:25 +0000, David Peverley wrote: > Sometimes... When they are I've manually marked blocks as bad and > re-started the test run :-D I had wondered about whether it was blocks > naturally failing with use, but some of these blocks haven't been (Ok, > SHOULDNT have been!) erased anywhere near 100,000 times so I'm > suspicious about this. When I looked into it I noted that the > mtd_stresstest.ko doesn't mark blocks as bad ever so this is > potentially something that would occur. Yeah, I think the tests should not do this, they should just test and report you issues. > However, nandtest.c in > mtd-utils I notice *does* support marking of bad blocks during > testing. Should I consider using this instead? I'm not sure what the > relationship between these test tools is...? These are tools wirtten by different people at different times. Kernel MTD tests were written by Nokia guys and I think the tests are more or less consistent in how they behave. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)