[PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag

[quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxx (Quentin Schulz)]

Hi Richard, Boris,

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:50:41PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 1. Juli 2018, 22:33:47 CEST schrieb Boris Brezillon:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:35:57 +0200
> > Richard Weinberger <richard at nod.at> wrote:
> > 
> > > Quentin,
> > > 
> > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018, 09:40:53 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> > > > Now that we have the logic for skipping CRC check for static UBI volumes
> > > > in the core, let's expose it to users.
> > > > 
> > > > This makes use of a padding byte in the volume description data
> > > > structure as a flag. This flag only tell for now whether we should skip
> > > > the CRC check of a volume.
> > > > 
> > > > This checks the UBI volume for which we are trying to skip the CRC check
> > > > is static.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at bootlin.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c      |  4 ++++
> > > >  drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c       |  3 +++
> > > >  include/uapi/mtd/ubi-user.h | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > > >  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c
> > > > index 45c3296..3eea1df 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c
> > > > @@ -622,6 +622,10 @@ static int verify_mkvol_req(const struct ubi_device *ubi,
> > > >  	    req->vol_type != UBI_STATIC_VOLUME)
> > > >  		goto bad;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG &&
> > 
> > Oops, missed that req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG check was
> > missing parens (checkpatch --strict should complain about that).
> 
> Latest when building my local branch or in linux-next we had noticed.
> No need to worry.
>  
> > > > +	    req->vol_type != UBI_STATIC_VOLUME)
> > > > +		goto bad;  
> > > 
> > > We should also reject unknown flags here.
> > 
> > I agree.

Should I send another version of my patches for it? Same for
parenthesis around the flags masking above?

Quentin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/attachments/20180702/4cb65ca5/attachment.sig>