[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1341312382.2979.51.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:46:22 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: add minimal amount of reserved erase blocks in
Kconfig
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 23:43 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> First, change the semantics of CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE to be the
> percent of total number of eraseblocks (instead of total number of
> _good_ eraseblocks). And 'reserve' counts for both existing bad PEBs
> and those reserved for future bad PEB handling.
> Note this would still be % of the blocks in the mtd partition (and as
> such, it is very loosely related to the MBB of the device, if at all).
>
> Then, Richard may introduce the MBB parameter to ubiattach, and later
> may kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE (if no longer needed). The
> calculations will be according to the new parameter.
>
> What do you say?
>
> On a side note, the new ubiattach parameter should not be called MBB,
> but rather a generic "reserved" (or "% reserved").
>
> This is since the MBB is a property of the mtd nand device.
> But the ubi user may issue, for the partition attached, a value other
> than the device's MBB, according to his storage needs and
> risks/securities he is willing to take.
Sounds good, thank you!
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists