From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-by2nam03on0094.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 ([104.47.42.94] helo=NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com)
 by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1bZJAD-0005Jh-Mo
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:46:54 +0000
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:47:40 -0500
From: Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@ni.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
CC: <richard@nod.at>, <dwmw2@infradead.org>, <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
 <beanhuo@micron.com>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <nathan.sullivan@ni.com>,
 <xander.huff@ni.com>, <peterpansjtu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] mtd: nand_bbt: Move BBT block selection logic out
 of write_bbt()
Message-ID: <20160815144740.GA7067@senary>
References: <1471039103-6745-1-git-send-email-kyle.roeschley@ni.com>
 <20160813003703.4e86c042@bbrezillon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160813003703.4e86c042@bbrezillon>
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:37:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:58:22 -0500
> Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@ni.com> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > +	while (chip < nrchips) {
> 
> I'm probably missing something, but why are you turning the for loop
> into a while loop in this patch? The commit message does not mention
> that, and I don't see why you need it before you actually start
> reworking the code to recover from BBT write failures (which is done in
> patch 2).
> 

You had changed it in patch 2 (http://code.bulix.org/e16nvo-104988) and I just
shuffled it to the first patch since it seemed to make sense as additional code
cleanup. I'll go ahead and drop it though if you don't want it in.

-- 
Kyle Roeschley
Software Engineer
National Instruments