From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Sjosu-0006TA-Cc for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:50:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1340790846.29342.19.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: mtd nand erase and bad block From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Angus CLARK Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:54:06 +0300 In-Reply-To: <4FDEF60A.7010607@st.com> References: <4FC76039.6020701@sirius-es.it> <4FC771EC.4090500@intel.com> <4FC78012.5010704@sirius-es.it> <4FC8601C.5070708@intel.com> <4FC87D62.6020402@st.com> <1338540121.2536.150.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <20120601140445.346e322e@halley> <4FC8CBA7.6000702@st.com> <20120601175407.7c39a8fb@halley> <1338898670.2507.48.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4FDEF60A.7010607@st.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-SNBX0kPGhT+Vu9eIH0Vc" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Shmulik Ladkani Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-SNBX0kPGhT+Vu9eIH0Vc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 10:34 +0100, Angus CLARK wrote: > Hi Artem, >=20 > 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= . >=20 > Are you ok with the name MEMSCRUB? I know previously you have objected t= o this > name, since it might get confused with UBI scrubbing > (http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-September/032031.htm= l). In > fact, the conclusion of that thread was to add an extended erase IOCTL, w= ith a > 'flags' parameter to capture options such as erase bad blocks. Would thi= s be > the preferred method (it didn't seem to go anywhere last time), or is 'ME= MSCRUB' > 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? --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --=-SNBX0kPGhT+Vu9eIH0Vc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJP6tg+AAoJECmIfjd9wqK0XO4P/1peZFjFwk6dZMkgw3lzV7AB S5XMUk4Y3AGM8NdkkI5TkkZvnCt6867ud9iktgFq/dFWrQ9LfOYNabwYb6RfEveP b0PrZBxc/mdhkCH/kPdAUkbX8fTRNfolqzk+mIO4I+1iAbJRjYNEmNOQNpEPft+6 ace8pFujoAm4TlX9GJVcvElHpownvPBR6t/WBsnWeRoRAO2oOje9Oq+nvxCT7+Bp QcZ2bwBQR58Qy3nDPjSYrawBY8UEIPFimmVti+IROqEB6OfznZ2Tg1eHgCFzTxrm xN9wBufdv7/r1Q1uHrmTDwxeCrYLv8yent6PTSPzjVHygLvjn6SYdMvSCXBrs5Uk 6zdUgB30sVGQxd/TDCO4v9bw4WiUWitkSyZwIu3GaDX5SwHJ7rz2pMUbZ1yG+YRN B5IM5n+wHZ+e+sNSsVy2zKOHlIMd0eOYR6gMxidkLb+xUtfeonsnNGM4JF3TlO2c PigwssCP+thjGvsL5q69PAzKrRHrvko8wHyO5ddra+gdkdhOurBmp/CGQq0HdSdl EFB+tPQtXX0/C0BFHLPomGurz857sM5n1PhnJKPT4UxYmwmyMCRWX4XO5fQfHKP9 i23IV315q3OrJtKpPOKk7rfCGEfK6RQHb3Z1h9RT9YHKOK0cuhFRo9sg208blvdJ cFLj4pZUHpu1b2bC96pf =wMjF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-SNBX0kPGhT+Vu9eIH0Vc--