From 79b510c0f21174f4bd055d1aab156e548ae3a5f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Artem Bityutskiy Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 17:36:17 +0300 Subject: UBI: add few more comments Add few comments above ubi_scan_add_used() to explain why it is so complex. Requested by Satyam Sharma . Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy --- drivers/mtd/ubi/scan.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'drivers/mtd') diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/scan.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/scan.c index 197cd650356b..b24af2104a2a 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/scan.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/scan.c @@ -407,8 +407,12 @@ out_free_vidh: * @vid_hdr: the volume identifier header * @bitflips: if bit-flips were detected when this physical eraseblock was read * - * This function returns zero in case of success and a negative error code in - * case of failure. + * This function adds information about a used physical eraseblock to the + * 'used' tree of the corresponding volume. The function is rather complex + * because it has to handle cases when this is not the first physical + * eraseblock belonging to the same logical eraseblock, and the newer one has + * to be picked, while the older one has to be dropped. This function returns + * zero in case of success and a negative error code in case of failure. */ int ubi_scan_add_used(const struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_scan_info *si, int pnum, int ec, const struct ubi_vid_hdr *vid_hdr, -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151