Hi Artem!

Am 26.05.2012 14:41, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> while my daughters are sleeping, I have a chance to quickly review the
> code. I just start from the attaching path and add TODOs.
> 
> Can we change our workflow a bit. I will create a branch for fastmap in
> the UBI tree taking v7 as the base. I'll add my TODOs there and commit,
> and send them also as a patch to the mailing list. You then send
> incremental patches which fix TODOs or anything else.
> 
> We can discuss my notes and if some of them make no sens - the patch
> would just kill the TODO.
> 
> In any case, I feel a need to switch to incremental development and get
> incremental patches instead of code drops. You can send entire fastmap
> work to the list from time to time, of course, for people to look.
> 
> How does this sound?

Sounds sane to me.

> Also, I'd like you to document the tests you do. I'd like to start
> making sure that we never break anything.
> 
> We can start with the UBI tests from the mtd-utils plust the integck
> test. And whatever goes to my branch should never break them. Do these
> tests pass now? If not, let's make them pass.
> 

What is "integck" test?

UBI tests from mtd-utils pass now.
The io_paral triggered a race condition on my very fast qemu-kvm test system.
On my test board with real NAND flash this race never happened.
Anyway, it's fixed now.

I'm mostly testing with custom scripts, shall I send a patch against UBI tests?
These tests test fastmap corner cases.
E.g. Recovery from fastmap with an empty or full pool, etc...

> At some later points we'll start to move pieces to the master branch.
> 
> Shmulik, is it fine with you?
> 
> I'll publush the 'fastmap' branch a bit later and send you the patch
> with my TODO comments, if this is fine.

Perfectly fine.
I really appreciate your help!

Thanks,
//richard