linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:09:49 +0200
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 21:06 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Specify the on-chip checkpoint layout.
> The checkpoint consists of two major parts.
> A super block (identified via UBI_CP_SB_VOLUME_ID) and
> zero or more data blocks (identified via UBI_CP_DATA_VOLUME_ID).
> Data blocks are only used if whole checkpoint information does not fit
> into the super block.

And superblock is also a more or less standard name used by file-system.
I easily imagine difficulties and confusion when discussing UBIFS and
UBI and mixing UBI and UBIFS supersblocks up. IMHO, anything unique is
much better, even if it does not make much sense. E.g., "boss block" or
"pomo block" (pomo = boss in Finnish).

Would you consider picking a different name as well please?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

--
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/