[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1342452837.7270.15.camel@brekeke>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:33:57 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ubi: Fix bad PEBs reserve caclulation
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:05 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> The existing mechanism of reserving PEBs for bad PEB handling has two
> flaws:
> - It is calculated as a percentage of good PEBs instead of total PEBs.
> - There's no limit on the amount of PEBs UBI reserves for future bad
> eraseblock handling.
Thanks Shmulik - I did not have time to look at the patches, but the
overall description looks good. I will review the patches as soon as I
can. Thanks for making sense of this mess.
But one more think is the mtd web-site. I've grepped for '1%' and there
are plenty of them. I've changed them all to 2% more or less
mechanically - only cleaned up one section by removing out-of-date
information. Would you please grep for '2%' and review if the
information there is reasonable? Also, would you please add some more
info to this FAQ entry:
http://linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubi.html#L_bad_blocks_exceeded
Or even better if you could write a separate section for this stuff in
the documentation, then you could remove that FAQ entry completely.
Thanks a lot!
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists