On 9/30/2014 10:44 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+
On 9/30/2014 10:44 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+
Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
>>> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+ spin_lock(>wl_lock);
+ ubi->fm_work_scheduled =
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
> > On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> + spin_lock(>wl_lock);
> >> + ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0;
> >> + spin_unlock(>wl_lock);
> >
> >
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> + spin_lock(>wl_lock);
>> + ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0;
>> + spin_unlock(>wl_lock);
>
> Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
> like
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> + spin_lock(>wl_lock);
> + ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0;
> + spin_unlock(>wl_lock);
Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking design.
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+ spin_lock(ubi-wl_lock);
+ ubi-fm_work_scheduled = 0;
+ spin_unlock(ubi-wl_lock);
Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+ spin_lock(ubi-wl_lock);
+ ubi-fm_work_scheduled = 0;
+ spin_unlock(ubi-wl_lock);
Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
like this
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+ spin_lock(ubi-wl_lock);
+ ubi-fm_work_scheduled = 0;
+ spin_unlock(ubi-wl_lock);
Andrew Morton
Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
+ spin_lock(ubi-wl_lock);
+ ubi-fm_work_scheduled = 0;
+
If the WL pool runs out of PEBs we schedule a fastmap write
to refill it was soon as possible.
Ensure that only one at a time is scheduled otherwise we might end in
a fastmap write storm was writing the fastmap can schedule another
write if bitflips were detected.
Signed-off-by: Richard
If the WL pool runs out of PEBs we schedule a fastmap write
to refill it was soon as possible.
Ensure that only one at a time is scheduled otherwise we might end in
a fastmap write storm was writing the fastmap can schedule another
write if bitflips were detected.
Signed-off-by: Richard
12 matches
Mail list logo