Hi Artem, On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:56:50 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedeki...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shmulik, I've separated out the defconfig changes and pushed patches > 1,2, and 3 to the UBI tree (the master branch). Patches 4 and 5 are > already merged upstream. I did a couple of minor modifications in > commentaries and messages and I think in variables declaration section, > nothing else. I'll send you the patches separately.
Thanks! I've noticed a diff in the Kconfig describing MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT. In my original [PATCH 2/5] "ubi: Limit amount of reserved eraseblocks for bad PEB handling" I've amended the MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT explanation a bit. The diff between what's on linux-ubi and my suggested description is: - This option specifies the maximum bad physical eraseblocks UBI - expects on the UBI device (percents of total number of physical - eraseblocks on this MTD partition). If the underlying flash does not - admit of bad eraseblocks (e.g. NOR flash), this value is ignored. + If the MTD device admits of bad eraseblocks (e.g. NAND flash), UBI + reserves some amount of physical eraseblocks to handle new bad + eraseblocks. + This option specifies the maximum bad eraseblocks UBI expects on the + ubi device (percents of total number of flash eraseblocks). + This limit is used in order to derive amount of eraseblock UBI + reserves for handling new bad blocks. + If the device has more bad eraseblocks than this limit, UBI does not + reserve any physical eraseblocks for new bad eraseblocks, but + attempts to use available eraseblocks (if any). + If the underlying flash does not admit of bad eraseblocks (e.g. NOR + flash), this value is ignored. Just wanted to make sure you deliberately discarded these amendments. Regards, Shmulik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
