This is only an issue in the weird case that are worn down block is
left in the odd state of not being able to change the data that resides
on the block. That being said, this does pop up often when simulating
wear on block devices.
Currently, directory commits checked if the write succeeded by crcing the
block to avoid the additional RAM cost for another buffer. However,
before this commit, directory commits just checked if the block crc was
valid, rather than comparing to the expected crc. This would usually
work, unless the block was stuck in a state with valid crc.
The fix is to simply compare with the expected crc to find errors.
This was an easy fix, but highlighted the fact that the current testing
framework doesn't detect when a block is written to without an
associated erase.
Added a quick solution that creates an empty file during an erase.
Before, the littlefs relied on the underlying block device
to report corruption that occurs when writing data to disk.
This requirement is easy to miss or implement incorrectly, since
the error detection is only required when a block becomes corrupted,
which is very unlikely to happen until late in the block device's
lifetime.
The littlefs can detect corruption itself by reading back written data.
This requires a bit of care to reuse the available buffers, and may rely
on checksums to avoid additional RAM requirements.
This does have a runtime penalty with the extra read operations, but
should make the littlefs much more robust to different implementations.
This provides a limited form of wear leveling. While wear is
not actually balanced across blocks, the filesystem can recover
from corrupted blocks and extend the lifetime of a device nearly
as much as dynamic wear leveling.
For use-cases where wear is important, it would be better to use
a full form of dynamic wear-leveling at the block level. (or
consider a logging filesystem).
Corrupted block handling was simply added on top of the existing
logic in place for the filesystem, so it's a bit more noodly than
it may have to be, but it gets the work done.
Adopted buffer followed by size. The other order was original
chosen due to some other functions with a more complicated
parameter list.
This convention is important, as the bd api is one of the main
apis facing porting efforts.
Before, the lfs had multiple paths to determine config options:
- lfs_config struct passed during initialization
- lfs_bd_info struct passed during block device initialization
- compile time options
This allowed different developers to provide their own needs
to the filesystem, such as the block device capabilities and
the higher level user's own tweaks.
However, this comes with additional complexity and action required
when the configurations are incompatible.
For now, this has been reduced to all information (including block
device function pointers) being passed through the lfs_config struct.
We just defer more complicated handling of configuration options to
the top level user.
This simplifies configuration handling and gives the top level user
the responsibility to handle configuration, which they probably would
have wanted to do anyways.
Unfortunately, threading all dir blocks in a linked-list did
not come without problems.
While it's possible to atomically add a dir to the linked list
(by adding the new dir into the linked-list position immediately
after it's parent, requiring only one atomic update to the parent
block), it is not easy to make sure the linked-list is in a state
that always allows atomic removal of dirs.
The simple solution is to allow this non-atomic removal, with an
additional step to remove any orphans that could have been created
by a power-loss. This deorphan step is only run if the normal
allocator has failed.
The core algorithim that backs this filesystem's goal of fault
tolerance is the alternating of "metadata pairs". Backed by a
simple core function for reading and writing, makes heavy use
of c99 designated initializers for passing info about multiple
chunks in an erase block.
