Skip to content

Fix issue when TDBStore has varying erase sizes between areas. #12558

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2020

Conversation

jarlamsa
Copy link
Contributor

@jarlamsa jarlamsa commented Mar 3, 2020

Summary of changes

In some cases, it is possible that every erase unit in area 0
has the same size, but they are still different than in area 1.
Remove the flag for varying erase sizes and instead check every time
from flash, what is the erase size of the current unit.

Documentation

None


Pull request type

[X] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[X] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

Reviewers

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage
@soleilplanet


In some cases, it is possible that every erase unit in area 0
has the same size, but they are still different than in area 1.
Remove the flag for varying erase sizes and instead check from
flash, what is the erase size of the current unit.
@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from soleilplanet and a team March 3, 2020 12:00
@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

ciarmcom commented Mar 3, 2020

@jarlamsa, thank you for your changes.
@soleilplanet @ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

Copy link
Contributor

@VeijoPesonen VeijoPesonen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Mar 3, 2020

CI started

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Mar 3, 2020

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 2 of 7 test jobs failed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cloud-client-pytest
  • jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test

@jarlamsa
Copy link
Contributor Author

jarlamsa commented Mar 4, 2020

@0xc0170 The errors seem to be CI-related, please restart.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Mar 4, 2020

CI restarted

@adbridge
Copy link
Contributor

@jarlamsa in order to bring this cleanly to the mbed-os-5.15 branch could we please have an equivalent PR directly to that branch. We are getting PRs directly to that branch with functionality that is either not supported on Master or has deviated and thus we have a diverging code base. By creating an equivalent PR to this directly against that branch will enable us to ensure that the PR lands in time and cleanly. Thanks. We will then move the release version label over to that PR.

@jarlamsa
Copy link
Contributor Author

@adbridge sure, I'll provide that soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants