[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120219155741.4c2f0a02@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:57:41 +0200
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
dedekind1@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] MTD: UBI: wire up checkpointing
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:06:46 +0100 Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de> wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT
> +static int attach_by_checkpointing(struct ubi_device *ubi)
> +{
> + int cp_start, err;
> + struct ubi_scan_info *si;
> +
> + cp_start = ubi_find_checkpoint(ubi);
> + if (cp_start < 0)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + si = ubi_read_checkpoint(ubi, cp_start);
> + if (IS_ERR(si))
> + return PTR_ERR(si);
> +
> + ubi->bad_peb_count = 0;
> + ubi->good_peb_count = ubi->peb_count;
Zero reported bad PEBs when checkpointing.
Seems that checkpointing does not remember number/location of bad PEBs.
Are we fine with that?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT
> + err = attach_by_checkpointing(ubi);
> +
> + if (err) {
> + if (err != -ENOENT)
> + ubi_msg("falling back to attach by scanning mode!\n");
> +
> + err = attach_by_scanning(ubi);
> + }
Code does not fit error message.
Message states "falling back to scanning" only if "err != -ENOENT".
However code calls 'attach_by_scanning' regardless 'err'.
Was it your intention?
Regards,
Shmulik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists