Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2][MTD] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices | From | Bruce_Leonard@selinc ... | Date | Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:21:03 -0700 |
| |
linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org wrote on 08/26/2008 04:55:36 PM:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:00:55 -0700 (GMT-07:00) > Bruce Leonard <brucle@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > --- a/include/mtd/mtd-abi.h > > +++ b/include/mtd/mtd-abi.h > > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ > > #define __MTD_ABI_H__ > > > > struct erase_info_user { > > - uint32_t start; > > + uint64_t start; > > uint32_t length; > > }; > > > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct mtd_oob_buf { > > struct mtd_info_user { > > uint8_t type; > > uint32_t flags; > > - uint32_t size; // Total size of the MTD > > + uint64_t size; // Total size of the MTD > > uint32_t erasesize; > > uint32_t writesize; > > uint32_t oobsize; // Amount of OOB data per block (e.g. 16) > > This changes the kernel<->userspace ABI and is hence a big no-no. I > assume that this change will cause old userspace to malfunction on new > kernels, and vice versa. >
Well, in my posting I noted that the mtd-utils were broken because of this but I didn't really have any idea as to how to fix things. I can see why it would be a big no-no to change this. Do you have any suggestions on what I could do differently to prevent making that change?
> Supporting >2Gb MTD devices sounds useful (I'm surprised that we don't > already do so). >
There was a LOT of interest in this over the last few months while I was working on it, but a very suprising silence has developed since I posted the patches. I guess I'm more cutting edge than I thought :).
> Please cc linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org (at least) on MTD-related > patches, thanks.
I started with the MTD list and then also posted to lkml when I realized I had forgotten to CC it.
Thanks.
Bruce
| |