Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header

Christoph Hellwig
2007-02-25T05:47:03Z

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > In that case it's not an *implementation* version number, but rather
> > an on-disk *format* version number.
>
> True, will refine the comment.
>
> > There's a difference. It's also
> > often not used much, since another way of dealing with the problem is
> > to mark major each on-disk version with a different magic number.
>
> The advantage of version is that UBI can distinguish between garbage and
> incompatible image. If I meet wrong magic - what is it - rubbish,
> corrupted header? Should I run recovery procedure? Having version is
> just cleaner.

Agreed.

> > Why isn't this being done via #define? It's not like this is any kind
> > of an enumerated type, especially since it's being installed into a
> > 32bit type, and not even an enum type.
>
> Will be fixed, thanks.

We currently try to use enums for most constants, then again this really
doesn't matter all that much.