On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:30:07PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > On 02/06/17 06:43, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:29:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> Can we fix allocate_partition() to properly handle the > >> master->erasesize == 0 case instead of doing that? > > > > Is everything actually ready for the eraseblock size to be 0? > > That was my initial motivation for faking it.
Understood. I think it's probably better to avoid hacking drivers like you were about to, but I was also curious if anyone had thought through the implications of *not* forcing a non-zero size. > > That would > > seem surprising to many applications, I would think. Can you, for > > instance, even use UBI on such a device? > > I've tried ext2 and I believe Andrew has tried minix fs. We're talking > SRAM so UBI/UBIFS doesn't really provide much benefit for this use-case. Right. But that's not necessarily true for all NO_ERASE devices, so we'd probably want to think about that before allowing it. Brian
