Re: mtd nand erase and bad block

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 10:34 +0100, Angus CLARK wrote:
> Hi Artem,
> 
> On 06/05/2012 01:17 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 17:54 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> >>
> >> My personal preference would be:
> >> 1. A new ioctl (MEMSCRUB?)
> >> 2. debugfs flag, PER MTD PART (slightly safer than your global flag)
> >> 3. global debugfs flag
> >>
> > Yes, I guess option 1 is the best I think. Option 2 needs too much work.
> 
> Are you ok with the name MEMSCRUB?  I know previously you have objected to this
> name, since it might get confused with UBI scrubbing
> (http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-September/032031.html).  In
> fact, the conclusion of that thread was to add an extended erase IOCTL, with a
> 'flags' parameter to capture options such as erase bad blocks.  Would this be
> the preferred method (it didn't seem to go anywhere last time), or is 'MEMSCRUB'
> with the existing erase_info_user64 structure acceptable?

I think Shmulik had a good point - scrubbing is not only about erasing,
but also about changing the BBT. So a separate ioctl makes more sense.
As for the name, we could name it MEMBBSCRUB, I guess?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]