From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1SWn99-0005DN-LM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:00 +0000 Message-ID: <1337685876.2483.160.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: Resizing of an existing UBIFS From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Robert Homann Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:24:36 +0300 In-Reply-To: <4FBB747D.10804@bury.com> References: <4FBB3506.3020904@bury.com> <1337669583.2483.88.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4FBB3E7F.3080807@bury.com> <1337674258.2483.123.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4FBB5B82.8070009@bury.com> <1337681963.2483.140.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <4FBB747D.10804@bury.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-dBpw1HoaYR/MeqxxqN72" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-dBpw1HoaYR/MeqxxqN72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 13:11 +0200, Robert Homann wrote: > On 05/22/2012 12:19 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >=20 > > Yeah, if someone wrote such a tool, it would make sense to support > > shrinking as well, because it is roughly a similar thin - you need to > > relocate data from the end, amend the index and probably some other > > UBIFS data-structures. >=20 > This is getting interesting. >=20 > On which level would such a tool operate? I guess it would have to do som= e > low-level operations directly on UBIFS structures, but it would use the U= BI > layer below only to get at the corresponding blocks. Other than that, the= UBI > structures would not require direct manipulations, am I right? In this ca= se, > such a tool could be implemented without strict dependency on UBI. It would work directly with the UBI volume. It would need to know the UBIFS data structures. Yes, you should not have strict dependency on UBI. Well, may be you'd need to use UBI ioctls to write your data back to the eraseblock. > Or would it be necessary to also touch UBI structures directly, in which = case > I guess it would become much more messy? No, you should not need to touch UBI structures. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --=-dBpw1HoaYR/MeqxxqN72 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPu3d0AAoJECmIfjd9wqK0StwP/jt0FeNui+DgL6hlblO1gqCo TBghFV8pIn4/Nc/6R8CoL42BAdIH81WJn47mVV5ClzpkGN0lSHgc1Qy18qTnNFUs 5yzRj64KhZXpdHBsQqlPDolkPEizgZj15rjYlDNRG/7NvhoBzaL2S+R6nc7e/1lx W25J5Grfxu0QXMz/RX5MmmdLnzLRuZ1pWbNeY6nDdBRy3hdCrEo1IYWPc2lW1JE1 qxEW/vflVbPdA8cWTC02HxKU4/HZQLRXcoj1NNFeLT9boqyMZSFsWEesuJZsZrbL uz0KYPqZ7ChPAkZ2ZzyZ0Q99hsupcyo3RvsBoKC+FbwNUvA7QQAautotNda/RMog O32JIZRlO1a4hmGxaob/Z/GXLiVSmRT9DsyLPgbgBzToUrb/EMUPAKFx59+rdTwz l/D0QQPiDOwDP7NWj6R0L/l4EFMOqTPqFTWUu1Wxh8eqOqLC+o5hCfuTPl+dEaBG 1lwbT7bZdiqyJCBDVuf4KWLDgxPkDfywbHVs4Sd2EHwuX8scdf1bRJX9nm2GVmPr HOp6sTWJqCjwWmX2JXJkwbgTN9jzKWjLqGfTbJeHgobzNHRwVFRWS/YoMVpLiSIj jr6zIlgZnagK1GOqHNI5GQTd00d6JVHk5nUwrl8BQqNo2MBA3MQ7LJWKelcfCLyG ZqpGUNAkBmrUldhQUvTH =V8u1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-dBpw1HoaYR/MeqxxqN72--