On 08/21/2015 03:12 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.08.2015 um 07:59 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
On 08/04/2015 04:56 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.07.2015 um 07:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
Currently, budget subsystem in ubifs are working on budgeting
[...]
#endif
+ unsigned int new_block_num;
+ unsigned int dirtied_block_num;
Why are these not under UBIFS_DEBUG?
I like the overflow checks.
Sorry for the late reply.
I did not find the overflow checks in my reading.
Could you help to explain what kind of the check
is it? and why we define in different way with
UBIFS_DEBUG defined or not.
AFAICT the idea is that you see it from the value
from a crash dump.
i.e. if new_page is > 2 an overflow happened.
Thanx, on my second thought, the new_block could
be unsigned int :1. Because there should be no
reading size larger than one block size. Okey,
thanx for your good suggestion here. I will
update it in next version. :)
I don't know that Artem's original plan was.
But we could also automate this checks.
And, Where did we define the UBIFS_DEBUG? I did not
get the design of this macro. :(
You have define the macro yourself.
But what is the purpose of UBIFS_DEBUG? I mean, why
we want to define the new_page as unsigned int rather than
bit field of unsigned int :1 in UBIFS_DEBUG mode?
Okey, defining it in bit mode is for overflow checking, I agree.
But why we define it in non-bit mode when UBIFS_DEBUG defined.
It's confusing to me. :(
Thanx
Yang
Thanks,
//richard
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
