Hi,
sorry for long delay.
First of all - please, make UBI and UBIFS changes in separate patches -
we consider these to be separate subsystems.
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 17:11 +0200, Joel Reardon wrote:
> @@ -629,12 +628,13 @@ static int erase_worker(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_work *wl_wrk,
> * @ubi: UBI device description object
> * @e: the WL entry of the physical eraseblock to erase
> * @torture: if the physical eraseblock has to be tortured
> + * @sync: schedule the work immediately and return after completion
> *
> * This function returns zero in case of success and a %-ENOMEM in case of
> * failure.
> */
> static int schedule_erase(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_wl_entry *e,
> - int torture)
> + int torture, int sync)
> {
> struct ubi_work *wl_wrk;
>
> @@ -649,7 +649,11 @@ static int schedule_erase(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_wl_entry *e,
> wl_wrk->e = e;
> wl_wrk->torture = torture;
>
> - schedule_ubi_work(ubi, wl_wrk);
> + if (sync)
> + erase_worker(ubi, wl_wrk, 0);
> + else
> + schedule_ubi_work(ubi, wl_wrk);
> +
> return 0;
> }
Please, do not modify this function. You only need to do "if (sync)"
in 'ubi_wl_put_peb()' and nowhere else, so do it directly there.
You will have no "what if sync fails" issues then. Also, just from
common sense point of view, "schedule_erase" should schedule, not erase.
Otherwise looks good - I can take this to the ubifs tree straight
away even without your security stuff.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
