[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54536834.1020005@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:45:08 +0800
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC: <dedekind1@...il.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
<computersforpeace@...il.com>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()
On 2014/10/31 16:09, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Hujianyang,
>
> Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang:
>> Hi Artem and Richard,
>>
>> We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node
>> in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they
>> are changed with atomic operation.
>>
>> I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do
>> you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just
>> what to know if I missed something. Could you please take
>> some time to explain that?
>
> I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question.
>
> If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations
> would break as they assume we have two.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
>
>
This question is basing on your comment for this patch:
"""
we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always
correct and we don't really need the second one anymore.
"""
I think that means one PEB is enough in your considering.
So I want to know if you are sure about this. Because
we use two leb for master_node in ubifs-level. So maybe
VTBL is like super_node, not master_node, right?
--
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