From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [195.209.228.254] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EMQiR-0006bv-R3 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:51:04 -0400 Message-ID: <43413716.1040402@yandex.ru> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:50:14 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zhao forrest References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]erase block header(revision 4) List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , zhao forrest wrote: > Artem asked me to remove allocation on the stack, so who should I listen > to? This really made me very very confused :( Yes, I suggested to share one static clean-marker structure for both NAND and NOR cases. >> What was (c->cleanmarker_size == 0) used for? > > For the flash that don't need a clean marker. No, that worked for NAND this way (c->cleanmarker_size was 0) -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.