linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc

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]

Message-ID: <51933B79.5000608@freescale.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 May 2013 15:38:33 +0800
From:	Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>
To:	<dedekind1@...il.com>
CC:	<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc_size

于 2013年05月15日 15:27, Artem Bityutskiy 写道:
> On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
>> Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields.
>> We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie<b32955@...escale.com>
> Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them
> in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches
> on top of them, which is a bit confusing.
>
Ok, Please drop the 3 patches.

>>    * @cellinfo:		[INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident
>>    * @ecc_strength:	[INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet.
>> + *			The minimum number of bits correctability, if known;
>> + *			if unknown, set to 0.
> I find this confusing still. How about this comment.
>
> ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per
> @ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero.
>
>
it's okay to me.
>>    * @ecc_size:		[INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength,
>> - *                      also from the datasheet.
>> + *                      also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step
>> + *			size, if known; if unknown, set to 0.
> Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"?
>
In nand_ecc_ctrl{}, the ecc step is named to @size.

Personally, i perfer to ecc_step.


thanks
Huang Shijie



--
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/