Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > In that case it's not an *implementation* version number, but rather
> > an on-disk *format* version number. 
> 
> True, will refine the comment.
> 
> >  There's a difference.  It's also
> > often not used much, since another way of dealing with the problem is
> > to mark major each on-disk version with a different magic number.
> 
> The advantage of version is that UBI can distinguish between garbage and
> incompatible image. If I meet wrong magic - what is it - rubbish,
> corrupted header? Should I run recovery procedure? Having version is
> just cleaner.

Agreed.  

> > Why isn't this being done via #define?  It's not like this is any kind
> > of an enumerated type, especially since it's being installed into a
> > 32bit type, and not even an enum type.
> 
> Will be fixed, thanks.

We currently try to use enums for most constants, then again this really
doesn't matter all that much.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/