On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 04:43:59PM -0400, Ben Gardiner wrote:
+static void spread_partition(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct part_info *part,
- u32 *next_offset)
As in patch 2, change u32 to uint64_t.
Ok.
+{
- if (!mtd->block_isbad)
- goto out;
- u32 i, bb_delta = 0;
- for (i = part->offset; i - bb_delta < part->offset + part->size;
- i += mtd->erasesize) {
- if (mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i))
- bb_delta += mtd->erasesize;
- }
- /*
- * Absorb bad blocks immeadiately following this
- * partition also into the partition, such that
- * the next partition starts with a good block.
- */
- while (i < mtd->size && mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i)) {
- bb_delta += mtd->erasesize;
- i += mtd->erasesize;
- }
Could this be refactored with get_len_incl_bad()? It should return both the updated length and a flag indicating whether it was truncated.
Yes, I think so. Good point.
- debug("spread_partitions: device = %s%d, partition %d ="
- " (%s) 0x%08x@0x%08x\n",
- MTD_DEV_TYPE(dev->id->type), dev->id->num,
- part_num, part->name, part->size,
- part->offset);
Why the extra indent on that last line?
IMHO, it's also nicer to line up continuation lines like this:
debug("spread_partitions..." " (%s) ..." MTD_DEV... part_num... part->offset);
Right. I think I forgot also about this formatting requirement which you pointed out in the env.oob review. I'll get it right soon enough.
Best Regards, Ben Gardiner
--- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca