On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:12:35 Charles Manning wrote: > On Tuesday 22 May 2012 00:31:25 peterlingoal wrote: > > Hi Charles: > > > > following is a proposed patch that check for block state after > > discovering a check point block, and continues search if the block state > > is DEAD: From b08b8c5fc21c2820f66454968be3a5115477fc96 Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Lin > > Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:25:55 +0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] yaffs: ignore checkpt if it is in bad block > > > > --- > > yaffs_checkptrw.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/yaffs_checkptrw.c b/yaffs_checkptrw.c > > index 997a618..0d63e74 100644 > > --- a/yaffs_checkptrw.c > > +++ b/yaffs_checkptrw.c > > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ > > > > #include "yaffs_checkptrw.h" > > #include "yaffs_getblockinfo.h" > > +#include "yaffs_nand.h" > > +#include "yaffs_guts.h" > > > > static int yaffs2_checkpt_space_ok(struct yaffs_dev *dev) > > { > > @@ -117,6 +119,15 @@ static void yaffs2_checkpt_find_block(struct > > yaffs_dev *dev) > > tags.ecc_result); > > > > if (tags.seq_number == YAFFS_SEQUENCE_CHECKPOINT_DATA) { > > + enum yaffs_block_state state = 0; > > + u32 seq_number = 0; > > + yaffs_query_init_block_state(dev, i, &state, &seq_number); > > + if( YAFFS_BLOCK_STATE_DEAD == state ) > > + { > > + yaffs_trace(YAFFS_TRACE_CHECKPOINT, > > + "ignore bad checkpt block %d", i); > > + continue; > > + } > > This approach won't always work > yaffs_querey_init_block_state() applies a block offset which is not set up > properly yet. Instead you need to use the raw functions during checkpoint > reading: > > + dev->param.query_block_fn(dev, i, &state, &seq); > + if (state == YAFFS_BLOCK_STATE_DEAD) > + continue; > > > /* Right kind of block */ > > dev->checkpt_next_block = tags.obj_id; > > dev->checkpt_cur_block = i; > > I have a fix for this that should be pushed to yaffs2 git today. Pushed. http://yaffs.net/gitweb?p=yaffs2.git;a=commitdiff;h=d9cae0a277c62c660e4802d3b8745500583273da > > I am also adding a further check to the checkpointing. > > Currently the checkpoint data has various checks in it, but none that > checks for dropped or stale data during the reading. Each checkpoint record > is framed and there is a checksum at the end which do provide a level of > checking. > > I have written some code, now under test, which does further checks on a > chunk-by-chunk basis. This should be checked in today. > This has also been pushed. -- CHarles