[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120825120231.73577d6a@halley>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:02:31 +0300
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To: Huang Shijie <shijie8@...il.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dedekind1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number
when truncating occurs
Hi Huang,
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:26:07 -0400 Huang Shijie <shijie8@...il.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c b/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c
> index 4558e0f..fc960a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c
> @@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ static int parse_cmdline_partitions(struct mtd_info *master,
> "%s: partitioning exceeds flash size, truncating\n",
> part->mtd_id);
> part->parts[i].size = master->size - offset;
> - part->num_parts = i;
> + part->num_parts = i + 1;
> + break;
Your analysis seems right, but let me offer an alternative approach.
I would simply:
- part->num_parts = i;
(and not replace it with anything).
The specified cmdline partitions might not be ordered (according to
start offset), so next partition specified after the truncated one might
define a partition at the beginning of the device, which is okay
(regardless the truncation of current partition).
Your patch skips the definitions of next partitions, which can be legit.
I agree specifying "unsorted" partitions is not commonly used (and it
might make no sense when using the "remaining" syntax), but it is legit
to define all partitions _explicitly_ with their size@...set in an
unordered fashion.
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