lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] Fix the issue for clearing status process
Hi Yoshio,

Yoshio Furuyama <ytc-mb-yfuruyama7@kioxia.com> wrote on Tue, 6 Apr
2021 10:47:26 +0900:

Could you add "mtd: nand: bbt:" as prefix for the title (same for the
other patch, even though you're not the original author).

> In the unlikely event of bad block,
> it should update its block status to BBT,
> In this case, there are 2 kind of issue for handling
> a) Mark bad block status to BBT: It was fixed by Patric's patch
> b) Clear status to BBT: I posted patch for this issue
>
> Patch:
> Issue of handing BBT (Bad Block Table) for
> some particular blocks (Ex:10, 11)
> Updating status is, first clear status, second set bad block status.
> Patrick's patch is only fixed the issue for setting status process,
> so this patch fix the clearing status process.

This commit message is not clearly describing the situation, could you
please reword it?

>
> Signed-off-by: Yoshio Furuyama <ytc-mb-yfuruyama7@kioxia.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/bbt.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/bbt.c
> index 64af6898131d..0780896eaafe 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/bbt.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/bbt.c
> @@ -112,11 +112,13 @@ int nanddev_bbt_set_block_status(struct nand_device *nand, unsigned int entry,
> ((entry * bits_per_block) / BITS_PER_LONG);
> unsigned int offs = (entry * bits_per_block) % BITS_PER_LONG;
> unsigned long val = status & GENMASK(bits_per_block - 1, 0);
> + unsigned long shift = ((bits_per_block + offs <= BITS_PER_LONG) ?
> + (offs + bits_per_block - 1) : (BITS_PER_LONG - 1));

Given the fact that we do arithmetic operations (&, |) on an unsigned
long value I don't think the operation tampers with the next entry in
the pos array.

I'm fine fixing it but I don't think this implementation works. It is
fine if offs is 29 or 30 but not if it is 31 (assuming 32-bits
arithmetic, it's the same for the 64-bit case).

>
> if (entry >= nanddev_neraseblocks(nand))
> return -ERANGE;
>
> - pos[0] &= ~GENMASK(offs + bits_per_block - 1, offs);

Would something like the following work?

pos[0] &= ~GENMASK(MIN(offs + bits_per_block - 1, BITS_PER_LONG - 1), offs)

Again, I am not convinced it is worth darkening the logic unless I am
not understanding it correctly.

> + pos[0] &= ~GENMASK(shift, offs);
> pos[0] |= val << offs;
>
> if (bits_per_block + offs > BITS_PER_LONG) {

Thanks,
Miquèl

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-07 11:05    [W:0.109 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site