On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 00:21 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Lubomir Rintel,
In message 1360191866.3594.10.camel@unicorn you wrote:
if (mtd_type != MTD_DATAFLASH)
if (mtd_type && mtd_type != MTD_DATAFLASH)This change appears to be redundant. If mtd_type is null, then this is already caught iun te test mtd_type != MTD_DATAFLASH, isn't it?
No. We don't want the erase ioctl to be called for non-MTD devices and files (where mtd_type is null).
I see. But you are misusing mtd_type.
You should define something like MTD_NO_FLASH or so, and use that.
I found it a bit more abusive to use a MTD_* macro in mtd_type variable for something what is not actually a type of a MTD device, specially when a change in MTD ABI would be needed.
Maybe passing a NULL mtd_info_user pointer to flash_{read,write}_buf() instead of zero type (which happens to be MTD_ABSENT, and, as you pointed out, a misuse) would make more sense for a non-MTD file?
perror ("Cannot get MTD information");
perror ("Cannot access MTD device");I don't understand this. You talk about a MTD device here, but expect that MEMGETINFO will not work on it? Please explain in which exact circumstances such a situation wouldhappen.
The error message (mention of MTD at that point) is incorrect. fstat()
So it needs to be fixed.
Hopefully fixed in a follow-up patch. I'll follow up with another one (this time with proper changlog and versioning, sorry for that) once an acceptable solution to the issue above is agreed upon.
Thanks, -- Lubo