From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Xk7Hn-00087s-6d for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:20 +0000 Message-ID: <545343CA.7080507@nod.at> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:09:46 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hujianyang , dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change() References: <1414259021-5691-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1414659349.23185.27.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <54530A29.9070208@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <54530A29.9070208@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hujianyang, Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang: > Hi Artem and Richard, > > We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node > in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they > are changed with atomic operation. > > I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do > you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just > what to know if I missed something. Could you please take > some time to explain that? I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question. If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations would break as they assume we have two. Thanks, //richard