From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751857AbeBDMzH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 4 Feb 2018 07:55:07 -0500
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:40319 "EHLO
        mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750821AbeBDMy7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 4 Feb 2018 07:54:59 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225NkI0lOCKw0wiYMUMFjLI3mNsdN1g4DoBXwzMDNqK4DeBPykO8XcYXVe8UBMPzmWU6tmiAGg==
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] lightnvm: pblk: refactor bad block identification
To: Javier Gonzalez <javier@cnexlabs.com>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1517364411-22386-1-git-send-email-javier@cnexlabs.com>
 <1517364411-22386-5-git-send-email-javier@cnexlabs.com>
 <bdde0655-0904-0bf1-7029-51708fcff8b3@lightnvm.io>
 <F1AA3AA6-8F23-43A8-9C4C-5F684A80782C@cnexlabs.com>
 <33896b20-c555-7c60-ed47-28156f4c93bf@lightnvm.io>
 <DEB69E27-635B-4B4F-ABA4-08BEC14B291F@cnexlabs.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Matias_Bj=c3=b8rling?= <mb@lightnvm.io>
Message-ID: <71151484-9bee-512b-cfe4-dd5bdc1b4711@lightnvm.io>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 13:54:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DEB69E27-635B-4B4F-ABA4-08BEC14B291F@cnexlabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 02/04/2018 11:37 AM, Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 19.24, Matias Bjørling <mb@lightnvm.io> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/31/2018 10:13 AM, Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 16.51, Matias Bjørling <mb@lightnvm.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I have a patches abstracting this, which I think it makes it cleaner. I can push it next week for review. I’m traveling this week. (If you want to get a glimpse I can point you to the code).
>>
>> Yes, please do. Thanks
> 
> This is the release candidate for 2.0 support based on 4.17. I'll rebase
> on top of you 2.0 support. We'll see if all changes make it to 4.17
> then.
> 
> https://github.com/OpenChannelSSD/linux/tree/for-4.17/spec20
> 
> Javier
> 

Great. I look forward to be patches being cleaned up and posted. I do 
see some nitpicks here and there, which we properly can take a couple of 
stabs at.

One think that generally stands out to me is the "if 1.2 support", else, 
... statements. These could be structured better by having dedicated 
setup functions for 1.2 and 2.0.