Hi Richard,
After the 'coding style related'/'useless' comments, now comes a real
question related to the approach you've taken :-).
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:13:17 +0200
Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> wrote:
[...]
> +
> +/**
> + * ubi_wl_trigger_bitrot_check - triggers a re-read of all physical erase
> + * blocks.
> + * @ubi: UBI device description object
> + */
> +void ubi_wl_trigger_bitrot_check(struct ubi_device *ubi)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct ubi_wl_entry *e;
> +
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "Running a full read check");
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ubi->peb_count; i++) {
> + spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> + e = ubi->lookuptbl[i];
> + spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> + if (e) {
> + atomic_inc(&ubi->bit_rot_work);
> + schedule_bitrot_check(ubi, e);
> + }
> + }
Do we really need to create a ubi_work per PEB ?
Couldn't we create a single work being rescheduled inside the worker
function (after updating the ubi_wl_entry of course).
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something obvious that you'll probably
point out ;-).
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/
