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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1575979 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute bad_peb_limit if available

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute  bad_peb_limit if available Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-02-07 20:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute  bad_peb_limit if available Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute  bad_peb_limit if available Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:30 +0100

#1575979 — Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] mtd: ubi: use 'max_bad_blocks' to compute bad_peb_limit if available

Am 10.01.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Zach Brown:
> From: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@ni.com>
> 
> If the user has not set max_beb_per1024 using either the cmdline or
> Kconfig options for doing so, use the MTD function 'max_bad_blocks' to
> compute the UBI bad_peb_limit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@ni.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zach Brown <zach.brown@ni.com>
> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electron.com>

Does this patch go via the MTD tree?
In this case:
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1577140

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:33:53PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 10.01.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Zach Brown:
> > From: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@ni.com>
> > 
> > If the user has not set max_beb_per1024 using either the cmdline or
> > Kconfig options for doing so, use the MTD function 'max_bad_blocks' to
> > compute the UBI bad_peb_limit.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Westfahl <jeff.westfahl@ni.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zach Brown <zach.brown@ni.com>
> > Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electron.com>
> 
> Does this patch go via the MTD tree?
> In this case:
> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>

I thought we had said something about going through the UBI tree. But I
don't care.

I'm not sure what's happening with patches 3-5 yet either.

I'm applying patch 1 to l2-mtd.git. Depending on the following, I can
apply patch 2 as well...

...but this is still a bit awkward; AFAICT, if you use the default
Kconfig (MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT == 20) then this won't take effect. Accepting
the default seems a little different than "I chose a value in Kconfig."

I think we could probably reconcile this by dropping the Kconfig (as
Richard suggested), and defaulting to 20 if neither cmdline nor
autodetect (e.g., ONFI) have said otherwise.

Or if y'all agree that the behavior I mentioned is fine, I can still
take this on behalf of Richard.

Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1577153

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:03:45PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> I'm not sure what's happening with patches 3-5 yet either.

Never mind, those were reviewed and ready for me (not the NAND tree).
Applied 3 to 5 to l2-mtd.git.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web