[PATCH 3/4] UBI: Fastmap: Care about the protection queue

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 02.10.2014 15:28, schrieb Tanya Brokhman:
> Hi Richard
> 
> On 9/30/2014 1:20 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Fastmap can miss a PEB if it is in the protection queue
>> and not jet in the used tree.
>> Treat every protected PEB as used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard at nod.at>
>> ---
>>   drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c
>> index 2b0d8d6..2853a69 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c
>> @@ -1195,6 +1195,19 @@ static int ubi_write_fastmap(struct ubi_device *ubi,
>>           fm_pos += sizeof(*fec);
>>           ubi_assert(fm_pos <= ubi->fm_size);
>>       }
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < UBI_PROT_QUEUE_LEN; i++) {
>> +        list_for_each_entry(wl_e, &ubi->pq[i], u.list) {
> 
> why not list_for_each_entry_safe?

Because we don't delete elements from this list while iterating over it.

>> +            fec = (struct ubi_fm_ec *)(fm_raw + fm_pos);
>> +
>> +            fec->pnum = cpu_to_be32(wl_e->pnum);
>> +            fec->ec = cpu_to_be32(wl_e->ec);
>> +
>> +            used_peb_count++;
>> +            fm_pos += sizeof(*fec);
>> +            ubi_assert(fm_pos <= ubi->fm_size);
> 
> Is fm_size ok with this addition or does it needs updating as well?

It is okay. The fastmap size calculation reserves enough space for all possible
PEBs.

Thanks,
//richard