2d121c8d19
Ckparity is pretty flawed in littlefs, for several reasons. The biggest
one being that we can't even reliably detect single-bit errors.
But! It can still provide an extra layer of safety in a system where you
don't care about the extra code/stack cost.
And, for ckreads, performance cost...
Performance isn't a big problem for parity-checking. We can assume
metadata tags are going to relatively small (and can be controlled by
fragment_size). But for data checksums, ckreads risks O(b^2) when
performing many small reads, which can be a bit of a problem.
And since ckreads doesn't really prove anything interesting about the
system anymore, it makes sense to unbundle these two checks, rename
ckreads -> ckparity, and limit it to only checking parity bits.
This way, you can enable ckparity for a bit of extra safety, with a
code/stack cost hit, but without sacrificing performance.
---
I was hoping more code/stack savings, but since we still need to track
parity context in lfsr_data_t, and still need to intercept bd_read/cmp/
cpy calls that reference metadata, we end up needing to keep most of
the ck circuitry around:
code stack
default before: 36464 2672
default after: 36464 (+0.0%) 2672 (+0.0%)
code stack
ckparity before: 38036 3080
ckparity after: 38024 (-0.0%) 3080 (+0.0%)
We even end up still tracking checksum context for bptrs! Maybe we
should just go ahead and add ckcksums as a joke...