On 1/18/23 15:13, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:28 AM Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On 1/2/23 19:25, Jassi Brar wrote:
The patchset reduces ~400 lines of code, while keeping the functionality same
and making
meta-data operations much faster (by using cached structures).
Issue:
meta-data copies (primary and secondary) are being handled by the
backend/storage layer
instead of the common core in fwu.c (as also noted by Ilias) that is,
gpt_blk.c manages
meta-data and similarly raw_mtd.c will have to do the same when it arrives. The
code
could by make smaller, cleaner and optimised.
Basic idea:
Introduce .read_mdata() and .write_mdata() in fwu_mdata_ops that simply
read/write
meta-data copy. The core code takes care of integrity and redundancy of the
meta-data,
as a result we can get rid of every other callback .get_mdata() .update_mdata()
.get_mdata_part_num() .read_mdata_partition() .write_mdata_partition() and the
corresponding wrapper functions thereby making the code 100s of LOC smaller.
Get rid of fwu_check_mdata_validity() and fwu_mdata_check() which expected
underlying
layer to manage and verify mdata copies.
Implement fwu_get_verified_mdata(struct fwu_mdata *mdata) public function that
reads,
verifies and, if needed, fixes the meta-data copies.
Verified copy of meta-data is now cached as 'g_mdata' in fwu.c, which avoids
multiple
low-level expensive read and parse calls.
gpt meta-data partition numbers are now cached in gpt_blk.c, so that we don't
have to do expensive part_get_info() and uid ops.
First of all I have strong suspicious that this series are pretty much two
series at once.
Yes, I submitted two patchsets.
1) Optimizing the api of current fwu.
2) Introduce support for mtd backed storage (DeveloperBox platform as
an instance) using the new api.
They appear just fine in my inbox. Do they appear bad to you?
Take a look here.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/#r
where you can see two series in the same thread.
And this pretty much confuse b4.
The second issue is that you are sending patches from
Jassi Brar <[email protected]>
but SOB is
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <[email protected]>
And Tom said in past that they should match. There is a hook for it to check it
which everybody should be using. That's why please fix this in the next series.
I have submitted dozens of patches and pull requests over the last
many years. This never occurred to anybody.
It really depends how you download that patches.
Thanks,
Michal
