From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZTgKz-0002Gz-Ss for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:14:14 +0000 Message-ID: <55DA6E69.8070301@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:07:53 +0800 From: Dongsheng Yang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , , CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs.ubifs: remove the check for UBIFS_MAX_LEB_SZ References: <1439873555-5352-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1439887948.31419.118.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1439887948.31419.118.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 08/18/2015 04:52 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 12:52 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: >> There is a commit 92ed6c0 to increase UBIFS_MAX_LEB_SZ >> to 2MiB. But recently, as the leb size become larger and >> larger, 2MiB is not a suitable limit any more. >> >> Then remove this check in mkfs.ubifs >> >> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang >> --- >> NOTE: >> I am not sure the reason why we have to >> limit the leb size in mkfs.ubifs. Because >> I did not find any reason for it, I send >> this patch out. It's very possible I am >> mising something. > > Well, this is sanity check for the user input. If you accidentally > added few zeroes, we want to spot this and inform you, and you may > appreciate that we did not just created a bugus image for you. That's > the idea. Sorry, Artem, I was trying to understand it, but I did not got the point. Could you give me some more information about the idea? Maybe an example? Thanx a lot Yang > > Another point is that UBIFS and UBI reads eraseblocks entirely into > memory from time to time, e.g., when scanning the journal (UBIFS) or > when doing wear-levelling (UBI). Too large eraseblocks will affect the > UBI/UBIFS drivers negatively - the latency may increase significantly > (thing reading eraseblock, modifying, writing it), as well as memory > consumption. > > I personally like to be strict, and if I am not sure about something, I > put limits, assuming that others may later change the limits. > > That said, I'd prefer to increase the limit instead of removing it > altogether. I suggest to make it reasonably large, so that it suits > your purposes. > > Artem. > . >