Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932290AbaJaKp3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:45:29 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:24217 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756393AbaJaKp1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:45:27 -0400 Message-ID: <54536834.1020005@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:45:08 +0800 From: hujianyang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change() References: <1414259021-5691-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1414659349.23185.27.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <54530A29.9070208@huawei.com> <545343CA.7080507@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <545343CA.7080507@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.111.68.144] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/