From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16c2Wm-0006rc-00 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:57:12 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Robert Kaiser Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, J?rn Engel Subject: Re: MTD concat layer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: <24624.1013857706@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: rob@sysgo.de said: > OK, but is the function allowed to erase blocks up to the point where > it hits the partial block request ? That would make it simpler, > especially in the presence of variable block sizes. It doesn't matter. The caller _knows_ the blocksize setup, and must not _ever_ ask for an erase that doesn't both start and end on block boundaries. I hereby declare that the behaviour of the driver if this happens is undefined. You can do what ever you like, including erasing the whole of the flash, all hard drives, and blowing up the machine. I probably won't actually accept a patch which implements that. I'd take one which has a BUG() though ;) -- dwmw2