[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120719091600.7d55dadb@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:16:00 +0300
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To: dedekind1@...il.com
Cc: Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ubi: introduce ubi->bad_peb_limit
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:53 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
> I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig
> changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the
> series.
Wouldn't having the defconfig change as the last patch break things for
those defconfigs that had explicitly set CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE
other than the default?
Meaning, if the one-before-last would be "kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE",
then those defconfigs that had _explicitly_ set a BEB_RESERVE value,
which do not YET set a BEB_LIMIT value, will have their BEB_LIMIT as
the default - but they actually meant a specific value other than the
default.
This is why I tried to:
- set the CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT in defconfigs as part of the commit
which introduces this config (copy same value as their RESERVE config)
- kill all CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE references from defconfigs as part
of the commit which kills it
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