Can the current modification method be confirmed?
在 2019/9/16 6:00, Richard Weinberger 写道:
> I need to give this another thought
在 2019/9/16 6:00, Richard Weinberger 写道:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:01 AM chengzhihao wrote:
>>
>>> ubifs_assert(c, p < c->gap_lebs + c->lst.idx_lebs);
>>
>> I've done 50 problem reproduces on different flash devices and made sure
>> that the assertion was not triggered. See record.txt for
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:01 AM chengzhihao wrote:
>
> > ubifs_assert(c, p < c->gap_lebs + c->lst.idx_lebs);
>
> I've done 50 problem reproduces on different flash devices and made sure that
> the assertion was not triggered. See record.txt for details.
Thanks for letting me know. :)
I need
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:21 AM chengzhihao wrote:
>
> OK, that's fine, and I will continue to understand more implementation code
> related to this part.
I think we can go with the realloc() approach for now.
Can you please check whether the assert() triggers?
--
Thanks,
//richard
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:51 PM Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> > - ubifs_assert(c, p < c->gap_lebs + c->lst.idx_lebs);
> > + ubifs_assert(c, p < c->lst.idx_lebs);
I wonder, doesn't this assert trigger too?
--
Thanks,
//richard
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:00 AM Zhihao Cheng wrote:
>
> Running stress-test test_2 in mtd-utils on ubi device, sometimes we can
> get following oops message:
>
> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0140
> #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> #PF:
6 matches
Mail list logo
