From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Xu1xR-0003sP-4r for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:30:17 +0000 Message-ID: <1417105793.5858.117.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that all fastmap work is done upon WL shutdown From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Richard Weinberger Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:29:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <54774C71.50807@nod.at> References: <1416835236-25185-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1416835236-25185-4-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1417102739.5858.112.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <54774C71.50807@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:08 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Obviously, there is some misunderstanding. This looks like lack of > > separation and misuse of layering. I am missing explanations why I am > > wrong... > > So you want me to use the UBI WL background thread for the scheduled fastmap work? No. It is more like either use it or do not use it. > I didn't do it that way because you said more than once that fastmap is fastmap and > WL is WL. Therefore I've separated it. And "separated" meaning adding this code to wl.c? +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP + flush_work(&ubi->fm_work); +#endif Could it be separated some more then?