On 09/12/2021 07:28, Geliang Tang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:52:41PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
Recently I received a bug report that current badblocks code does not
+ * +--------+----+
+ * | S | E |
+ * +--------+----+
+ * 2.2) The setting range size == already set range size
+ * 2.2.1) If S and E are both acked or unacked range, the setting range S can
+ * be merged into existing bad range E. The result is,
+ * +-------------+
+ * | S |
+ * +-------------+
+ * 2.2.2) If S is uncked setting and E is acked, the setting will be denied, and
uncked -> unacked
+ * the result is,
+ * +-------------+
+ * | E |
+ * +-------------+
+ * 2.2.3) If S is acked setting and E is unacked, range S can overwirte all of
overwirte -> overwrite
+ bad blocks range E. The result is,
+ * +-------------+
+ * | S |
+ * +-------------+
+ * 2.3) The setting range size > already set range size
+ * +-------------------+
+ * | S |
+ * +-------------------+
+ * +-------------+
+ * | E |
+ * +-------------+
+ * For such situation, the setting range S can be treated as two parts, the
+ * first part (S1) is as same size as the already set range E, the second
+ * part (S2) is the rest of setting range.
+ * +-------------+-----+ +-------------+ +-----+
+ * | S1 | S2 | | S1 | | S2 |
+ * +-------------+-----+ ===> +-------------+ +-----+
+ * +-------------+ +-------------+
+ * | E | | E |
+ * +-------------+ +-------------+
+ * Now we only focus on how to handle the setting range S1 and already set
+ * range E, which are already explained in 1.2), for the rest S2 it will be
Cheers,
Wol
