| Message ID | 1284362113-26737-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c9bdc0ca41b8ca9658d6ec7e22b2fd708a450b67 |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > "nobad" might lead to the assumption that bad blocks are skipped, but this > option does exactly the opposite. Use a more descriptive name. > > Reported-by: Jon Povey <Jon.Povey@racelogic.co.uk> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> It does not apply to the latest mtd-utils tree. Would you please re-send an updated version?
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:20:20AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > "nobad" might lead to the assumption that bad blocks are skipped, but this > > option does exactly the opposite. Use a more descriptive name. > > > > Reported-by: Jon Povey <Jon.Povey@racelogic.co.uk> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > > Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > > It does not apply to the latest mtd-utils tree. Would you please re-send > an updated version? Ehrm, it still applies on top of Mike's original patch (it just seems that the latter is not pushed yet despite your mail saying so). Or do you want me to fold those two? Regards, Wolfram
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 09:54 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:20:20AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > "nobad" might lead to the assumption that bad blocks are skipped, but this > > > option does exactly the opposite. Use a more descriptive name. > > > > > > Reported-by: Jon Povey <Jon.Povey@racelogic.co.uk> > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > > > Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > > > > It does not apply to the latest mtd-utils tree. Would you please re-send > > an updated version? > > Ehrm, it still applies on top of Mike's original patch (it just seems > that the latter is not pushed yet despite your mail saying so). Or do > you want me to fold those two? Indeed forgot to push it out, sorry. No, I'll sort this out, thanks.
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > "nobad" might lead to the assumption that bad blocks are skipped, but this > option does exactly the opposite. Use a more descriptive name. > > Reported-by: Jon Povey <Jon.Povey@racelogic.co.uk> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Pushed to mtd-2.6.git, thanks!
diff --git a/nanddump.c b/nanddump.c index 8b3d4a1..709b2db 100644 --- a/nanddump.c +++ b/nanddump.c @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static void display_help (void) "-f file --file=file Dump to file\n" "-l length --length=length Length\n" "-n --noecc Read without error correction\n" -"-N --nobad Read without bad block skipping\n" +"-N --noskipbad Read without bad block skipping\n" "-o --omitoob Omit oob data\n" "-b --omitbad Omit bad blocks from the dump\n" "-p --prettyprint Print nice (hexdump)\n" @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void display_version (void) static bool pretty_print = false; // print nice static bool noecc = false; // don't error correct -static bool nobad = false; // don't skip bad blocks +static bool noskipbad = false; // don't skip bad blocks static bool omitoob = false; // omit oob data static unsigned long start_addr; // start address static unsigned long length; // dump length @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void process_options (int argc, char * const argv[]) {"startaddress", required_argument, 0, 's'}, {"length", required_argument, 0, 'l'}, {"noecc", no_argument, 0, 'n'}, - {"nobad", no_argument, 0, 'N'}, + {"noskipbad", no_argument, 0, 'N'}, {"quiet", no_argument, 0, 'q'}, {0, 0, 0, 0}, }; @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static void process_options (int argc, char * const argv[]) noecc = true; break; case 'N': - nobad = true; + noskipbad = true; break; case '?': error++; @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ int main(int argc, char * const argv[]) for (ofs = start_addr; ofs < end_addr ; ofs+=bs) { // new eraseblock , check for bad block - if (nobad) { + if (noskipbad) { badblock = 0; } else if (blockstart != (ofs & (~meminfo.erasesize + 1))) { blockstart = ofs & (~meminfo.erasesize + 1);
"nobad" might lead to the assumption that bad blocks are skipped, but this option does exactly the opposite. Use a more descriptive name. Reported-by: Jon Povey <Jon.Povey@racelogic.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> --- Build tested only. nanddump.c | 10 +++++----- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)