Re: Nandwrite's behavior in case of write failure

[Jehan Bing <jehan@orb.com>]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Yes, write and erase failure mean that the erasblock is bad. But I think
> marking a block as bad straight away is just dangerous. Who knows may be
> this is a small glitch in a bus, or a software bug, or some-one
> corrupted driver's memory, or whatever. This is why UBI is doing
> eraseblock torturing before marking it as bad. And it is very careful
> about error codes - only EIO code is considered as a reason to mark an
> eraseblock as bad.


Fixed broken behavior in case of write failure. More specifically:
- Only try to mark a block bad if the errors are EIO. Other errors
will abort the tool.
- Also abort the tool if the marking fails instead of ignoring it.

Signed-off-by: Jehan Bing <jehan@orb.com>

--- a/nandwrite.c	2009-06-08 13:31:14.000000000 -0700
+++ b/nandwrite.c	2009-06-08 13:33:32.000000000 -0700
@@ -586,6 +586,10 @@ int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
 			erase_info_t erase;
 
 			perror ("pwrite");
+			if (errno != EIO) {
+				goto closeall;
+			}
+
 			/* Must rewind to blockstart if we can */
 			rewind_blocks = (mtdoffset - blockstart) / meminfo.writesize; /* Not including the one we just attempted */
 			rewind_bytes = (rewind_blocks * meminfo.writesize) + readlen;
@@ -602,7 +606,9 @@ int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
 				(long)erase.start, (long)erase.start+erase.length-1);
 			if (ioctl(fd, MEMERASE, &erase) != 0) {
 				perror("MEMERASE");
-				goto closeall;
+				if (errno != EIO) {
+					goto closeall;
+				}
 			}
 
 			if (markbad) {
@@ -610,7 +616,7 @@ int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
 				fprintf(stderr, "Marking block at %08lx bad\n", (long)bad_addr);
 				if (ioctl(fd, MEMSETBADBLOCK, &bad_addr)) {
 					perror("MEMSETBADBLOCK");
-					/* But continue anyway */
+					goto closeall;
 				}
 			}
 			mtdoffset = blockstart + meminfo.erasesize;