From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756743Ab2HYI7r (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2012 04:59:47 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:50633 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753849Ab2HYI7i (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2012 04:59:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:02:31 +0300 From: Shmulik Ladkani To: Huang Shijie Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number when truncating occurs Message-ID: <20120825120231.73577d6a@halley> In-Reply-To: <1345904767-23011-1-git-send-email-shijie8@gmail.com> References: <1345904767-23011-1-git-send-email-shijie8@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Huang, On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:26:07 -0400 Huang Shijie wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c b/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c > index 4558e0f..fc960a3 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c > @@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ static int parse_cmdline_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > "%s: partitioning exceeds flash size, truncating\n", > part->mtd_id); > part->parts[i].size = master->size - offset; > - part->num_parts = i; > + part->num_parts = i + 1; > + break; Your analysis seems right, but let me offer an alternative approach. I would simply: - part->num_parts = i; (and not replace it with anything). The specified cmdline partitions might not be ordered (according to start offset), so next partition specified after the truncated one might define a partition at the beginning of the device, which is okay (regardless the truncation of current partition). Your patch skips the definitions of next partitions, which can be legit. I agree specifying "unsorted" partitions is not commonly used (and it might make no sense when using the "remaining" syntax), but it is legit to define all partitions _explicitly_ with their size@offset in an unordered fashion. Regards, Shmulik