From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9] helo=mail.free-electrons.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Wk2SV-0007Im-Ca for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:28:47 +0000 Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:27:53 -0300 From: Ezequiel Garcia To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse , Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mtd: nand: Account the blocks used by the BBT in the ecc_stats Message-ID: <20140513022753.GB1447@arch.cereza> References: <1395403064-28113-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1395403064-28113-3-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1395403064-28113-3-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 21 Mar 08:57 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Strictly speaking we should be updating the ecc_stats in the master > MTD object, with the blocks used by the bad block table. > > This is already being done for bad and reserved blocks detected doing > the BBT search, but not for the blocks used by the BBT itself. This commit > adds the latter. > > It should be noted that the ecc_stats structure is kept only for userspace > information, accesible through an ioctl. However, since the master MTD object > is not tied to any /dev/mtd{N} device node in the filesystem, there's currently > no way to retrieve this information. > > This ecc_stats is used for the MTD partitions typically allocated and > registered by mtd_device_parse_register(). These have a device node, but scan > for bad blocks and updates the ecc_stats in a different code path. > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia > -- > For the reasons exposed above, it's not clear we should remove the ecc_stats > update in the master MTD altogether or simply take account of the BBT blocks > for consistency. I've chosen the latter, for it seemed a safer changer. > > I'm open to discussion, though. Brian, Can you comment a bit on this one? Should I keep this change in v2? -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com