From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [195.209.228.254] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EMRbP-00006b-Cs for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:47:40 +0100 Message-ID: <43414378.80005@yandex.ru> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:43:04 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= References: <43413716.1040402@yandex.ru> <20051003142851.GE4639@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> In-Reply-To: <20051003142851.GE4639@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: zhao forrest , 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: , J=F6rn Engel wrote: > Bad suggestion then. Try to draw a complete graph of all possible > users to this static structure, the locking required to make it > correct, then prove its correctness. Oh, It is not constant anymore (we have the "erasecount" filed there).=20 Right. It must not be static. Zhao, I apologize for incorrect suggestion.= >=20 > If that didn't already scare you to death, try to anticipate future > code changes to such brittle code. Yes, yuo could have just proved its incorrectnes in 2-3 words instead. --=20 Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.