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 22:02:44 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout

Am 07.03.2012 17:09, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> 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?
>

Will do.

Thanks,
//richard

--
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/