From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20] helo=orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1FM05h-0005Dh-5C for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:57:30 -0500 Message-ID: <44211F79.1010503@intel.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:57:13 +0300 From: Alexander Belyakov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind@infradead.org References: <1142968084.13740.19.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <1142968084.13740.19.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Korolev, Alexey" , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, "Kutergin, Timofey" Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Linux MTD striping middle layer List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote: > 1. In case of NAND concatenation, what do you do with bad eraseblocks? > Say, you stripe 2 NAND flashes, and the fist one has bad eraseblock 0, > and the second one has bad eraseblock 1? Am I right that in this case > you'll just waste eraseblock 0 of chip 1 and eraseblock 1 of chip 0? > Yes, you got it correctly. > 2. Suppose we have a stripped device mtd2 which stripes mtd0 and mtd1. > Suppose user calls mtd2->block_mark_bad(N) (the block_mark_bad(N) method > of the mtd2 device). Your actions? Will you mark eraseblock N of both > mtd0 and mtd1 as bad physically? Note, actually only one of them became > bad... Yes, in current implementation both blocks on subdevices, representing one superblock, will be marked as bad. Thanks, Alexander Belyakov