From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YGl5b-0000kU-8K for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: <54C9F87F.6070807@nod.at> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:08:15 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hujianyang Subject: Re: Current linux-next status of UBI/UBIFS? Re: new UBI co-maintainer References: <1421918762.8637.162.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <54C84CC2.6060708@huawei.com> <54C90484.4050001@nod.at> <54C9A8D2.8020403@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <54C9A8D2.8020403@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brian Norris , artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com, Li Zefan , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Sheng Yong List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 29.01.2015 um 04:28 schrieb hujianyang: > I wish it could be soon, because there are some other patches about > mounting reliability improvement I want to send. Could I send them > together? But I haven't finished this work, so I think one by one > is the best way, and I can discuss the designing with you and Artem > in time. Please send them and describe the issues in details, provide a test case, etc... It is also important to tell us *how* this bug can happen. >>> [PATCH] UBI: fix soft lockup in ubi_check_volume() >> >> I'm also fine with that. >> >>> and ubidump v6 >> >> For ubidump I have to read the whole thread again as I got lost in it. :) >> >>> The patch "UBI: fix soft lockup in ubi_check_volume()" solves a really >>> important problem, I wish it could be merged into stable soon. >> >> Yes. >> >>> I've discussed with Richard about the recovery of an corrupted UBIFS >>> image, for example, ECC error. And actually my colleagues and I had >>> worked out some features to improve the reliability of UBIFS. We are >>> happy to share our design and greatly aspire the help from community. >> >> Nice. >> >>> Also, I think we could start to add more functions to my ubidump to >>> make it a useful tool. >> >> I have to look at ubidump in detail but it sounds good. >> To debug fastmap issues I have also a tool to analyze UBI images. >> Maybe we can merge. First I have to shape it up. >> > > I'm glad with it. I was using ubidump for debugging these days, > but I'm not sure if this v6 is OK. I'd fixed some tiny issues > after v5 so I don't know if there are still other issues left. > Thanks for your reviewing. > > I see ubifastmap is marked as "Experimental feature" now and > you'd introduced multi-queue for ubiblock. I think some works, > e.g. testing, are really needed before importing these feature > into our products. Fastmap is experimental for good reasons. :) With my current patches nobody was able to kill it, so maybe I'll remove the experimental tag in v3.25. > By the way, I found some products in my company are using > MTD_UBI_GLUEBI to implement a squashfs on top of UBI device. > UBI_GLUEBI or UBI_BLOCK, which is better in your considering, > and why? UBI Block, it was designed for that case. Just compare the number of layers. :) Thanks, //richard