nand_update_bbt fix

[Andrew McKay]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 18:04 -0500, Andrew McKay wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> For NAND parts with 2K pages or larger, kmalloc of one erase block will exceed 
>> 128K and fail.  A vmalloc is used in nand_scan_bbt to allocate enough memory for 
>> one erase block.  This should likely be the case for nand_update_bbt as well.
> 
> I think this is not about parts with 2K pages, but about parts with
> 256KiB eraseblocks.

Yes, you're correct, any part that has an erase block, including OOB, that 
exceeds 128K bytes.

> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c
>> index 55c23e5..43b8d08 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c
>> @@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ int nand_update_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t offs)
>>    /* Allocate a temporary buffer for one eraseblock incl. oob */
>>    len = (1 << this->bbt_erase_shift);
>>    len += (len >> this->page_shift) * mtd->oobsize;
>> - buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + buf = vmalloc(len);
>>    if (!buf) {
>>      printk(KERN_ERR "nand_update_bbt: Out of memory\n");
>>      return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ int nand_update_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t offs)
>>    }
>>
>>    out:
>> - kfree(buf);
>> + vfree(buf);
>>    return res;
>>   }
> 
> I would disagree with this patch. Other people are fighting against
> vmalloc, because they want to do DMA in their drivers, but they cannot.
> I've CCed Zhang who is doing the opposite to what you do.

I understand vmalloc is frowned upon in general, but then why is it already 
being used in nand_scan_bbt?  Any fix that avoids vmalloc for nand_update_bbt 
should be used in nand_scan_bbt as well.

> I think you should instead split the array on several smaller parts
> and work with those parts. And since this is a very common task in
> MTD, it is better to create a helper library.
> 
> You may also take a look at what I suggested to Zhang:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-August/026845.html

Thanks, I will take a look.

Andrew