Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1535947

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value

From Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value
Date 2016-12-05 11:00 +0100
Message-ID <sKYdY-2SD-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <sKH3s-xb-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <sKLJL-3sb-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sKM38-3yX-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sKVzs-1nl-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <sKWOR-2aU-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 09:23 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> I started to implement that too but unfortunately never had the time
> to
> finish it :-(.
> Don't know why you were trying to move to kzalloc-ed buffer, but my
> goal was to avoid the extra copy when the controller transfers data
> using DMA, and the recent posts regarding vmalloc-ed buffers and DMA
> might solve the issue.

Yes, I wanted to do that globally for UBI/UBIFS to get rid of vmalloc.

> This being said, UBI and UBIFS tend to allocate big portions of
> memory (usually a full eraseblock), and sometime this is
> overkill.

Those checks were just hacky debugging functions at the beginning, then
they got cleaned up without a re-write.

> For example, I'm not sure we need to allocate that much memory to do
> things like 'check if this portion is all filled with 0xff'. 

Because memcmp() is was very easy to use. Back then the focus was
getting other things work well, and efforts were saved on less
important parts. And 128KiB was not terribly bad. Today, these less
important things are important.

> Allocating
> a ->max_write_size buffer and iterating over write-units should be
> almost as efficient and still consume less memory. But this has
> nothing
> to do with the vmalloc vs kmalloc debate ;-).

Well, this is related. Someone may start small and take care of these
first :-)

Artem.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Pan Bian <bianpan201604@163.com> - 2016-12-04 07:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 16:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-12-04 21:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2016-12-04 22:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-12-05 09:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/1] mtd: ubi: fix improper return value Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 22:40 +0100

csiph-web