Re: [PATCH v2 14/35] ubifs: extend budget for blocks

[Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 08/21/2015 03:12 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 21.08.2015 um 07:59 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
>> On 08/04/2015 04:56 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 30.07.2015 um 07:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
>>>> Currently, budget subsystem in ubifs are working on budgeting
>>
>> [...]
>>>>    #endif
>>>> +    unsigned int new_block_num;
>>>> +    unsigned int dirtied_block_num;
>>>
>>> Why are these not under UBIFS_DEBUG?
>>> I like the overflow checks.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>
>> I did not find the overflow checks in my reading.
>> Could you help to explain what kind of the check
>> is it? and why we define in different way with
>> UBIFS_DEBUG defined or not.
>
> AFAICT the idea is that you see it from the value
> from a crash dump.
> i.e. if new_page is > 2 an overflow happened.

Thanx, on my second thought, the new_block could
be unsigned int :1. Because there should be no
reading size larger than one block size. Okey,
thanx for your good suggestion here. I will
update it in next version. :)
>
> I don't know that Artem's original plan was.
> But we could also automate this checks.
>
>> And, Where did we define the UBIFS_DEBUG? I did not
>> get the design of this macro. :(
>
> You have define the macro yourself.

But what is the purpose of UBIFS_DEBUG? I mean, why
we want to define the new_page as unsigned int rather than
bit field of unsigned int :1 in UBIFS_DEBUG mode?

Okey, defining it in bit mode is for overflow checking, I agree.
But why we define it in non-bit mode when UBIFS_DEBUG defined.

It's confusing to me. :(


Thanx
Yang
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
> .
>