From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1S5xHk-0000Yt-Ur for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:42:58 +0000 Message-ID: <1331289909.22872.65.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi: Wait for Block Erase operation to finish From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Joakim Tjernlund Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:45:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1330697193.91058.YahooMailClassic@web29016.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, philipp.zabel@gmail.com, Paul Parsons Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:30 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > yes, UBI probably has some different use. One seems that it keeps > erasing the > same block over and over again if the erase fails. JFFS2 doesn't do > that since > you can't trust a block that is failing erase(how can you be sure that > write will work?) > So, IMHO, UBIFS should reconsider this policy. The thread is very long and I would like save my time by not going through it. But if you could start a new thread and formulate the problem with UBI, I could think about it a bit. I am open to change policies if it is not too much work. Otherwise I am open to give hints and suggestions and accept patches which change the policy. :-) -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy