From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D032C433E0 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55754206E2 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="M+wmfzU2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 55754206E2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-mtd-bounces+linux-mtd=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=EaA5jAFzWFenihaQAdyUCdn3LRnxOj6ktbXlsDsQZSI=; b=M+wmfzU2nlcTaD BemOjQxJa3cWh5GYowea6rskVnRtmKQFNbSJMk8eMKCBJzSZjgyGIFzRXhvg4YC4G0QissE9hMnn2 NBqfFOG2MIPQbn1HohDmJy+TaV69XxKrcEbfoTatzlfhMjYh+6EOO7jic+pvuiu9y1Zj2z/+XOi27 91GQZDepNLrekl4IM/FU+xOajcozmSCgV931XGcgh3bAvZ3eHtJvKI66o83WbVSmV58QEd+1g/e64 MyW0hmCO5DCRyqvltWyfF25SYETAfgpdK/SziyuE2eLFJhellzZPwrwhp8thOwdt0EpoKpAESGl8c Jydx926YgaSu3aqOtBNQ==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jg5UK-00066a-7A; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:53:48 +0000 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.227]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jg5UH-00065j-CT for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:53:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:2c:6930:5cf4:84a1:2763:fe0d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFCB12A3182; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:53:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:53:38 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Bean Huo Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block Message-ID: <20200602135338.7b66f395@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20200525121814.31934-1-huobean@gmail.com> <829d76189beff5a50ddc56123d22bff3aa6a3378.camel@gmail.com> <0a4fc94213ca5c2040796a66942f626587483721.camel@gmail.com> <20200602094825.26396b06@collabora.com> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200602_045345_557345_31C6A5B4 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.88 ) X-BeenThere: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: vigneshr@ti.com, Richard Weinberger , s.hauer@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, derosier@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, Bean Huo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+linux-mtd=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:46 +0200 Bean Huo wrote: > On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 09:48 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Bean, > > > > On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 23:10:43 +0200 > > Bean Huo wrote: > > > > > Hi Richard > > > would you please help us confirm below question?? > > > > Miquel suggested an approach that would allow us to deal with both > > JFFS2 > > and UBI/UBIFS without having any FS/wear-leveling specific code at > > the > > NAND level, but you decided to ignore his comments. Sorry but there's > > nothing we can do to help you if you don't listen to our > > recommendations. > > Expose this issue to FS layer, it is not good idea. that will impact > more code, and involve duplicated code. Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, you've lost the right to have your word in such design choices a long time ago. You can't deliberately lie to us for several weeks/months and expect us to trust you (your judgment) after that. Back to the actual proposal, it's something that came from a discussion we had with Miquel and Richard. It's certainly not perfect, but neither is the option of hardcoding a quirk for JFFS2/UBI/UBIFS in the Micron NAND driver. BTW, I think you completely occluded Miquel's suggestion to have a generic implementation at the MTD level for users who don't care about the pattern that's written to those 'soon-to-be-erased' blocks. See, that's one of the things I'm complaining about. You seem to ignore (don't know if it's deliberate or not) some of the suggestions we do. > > > > I've been quite disappointed by your behavior in the past, and it > > > continues. Recently you've taken Miquel's patches and claimed > > ownership > did you seem my recent patch? you can ignore that see this. I don't understand what you mean here, sorry. > > > > on them (probably not intentionally, but still) while you were > > clearly > > unable to rework your original series the way I suggested (which > > Miquel > > did after seeing you would never send new versions). > > seriously? Yes, seriously! > > > And when Miquel > > suggested a change to the implementation he had done based on the > > discussion we had with Richard, you decided to ignore it and pursue > > in > > the original direction. So, quite frankly, I'm really not convinced > > you > > can conduct such a change. > > > > As Miquel mentioned, we need richard's final comfirmation, > If he agrees with this proposal, I give up my current patch. > Actually, you need more than Richard's blessing. Miquel has to agree on the NAND changes, and even if I can't block the solution, I think I can at least give my opinion: anything that involves FS/wear-leveling specific code at the NAND level should be avoided. Given the discussion we had regarding JFFS2 and the cleanmarkers, I don't think we can come up with a solution that's safe for every users, hence the proposal to empower users with this responsibility. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C48C433E0 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D0E206E2 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726630AbgFBLxo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 07:53:44 -0400 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.227]:51186 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726139AbgFBLxn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 07:53:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:2c:6930:5cf4:84a1:2763:fe0d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFCB12A3182; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:53:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:53:38 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Bean Huo Cc: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, vigneshr@ti.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, derosier@gmail.com, Richard Weinberger , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bean Huo Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block Message-ID: <20200602135338.7b66f395@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20200525121814.31934-1-huobean@gmail.com> <829d76189beff5a50ddc56123d22bff3aa6a3378.camel@gmail.com> <0a4fc94213ca5c2040796a66942f626587483721.camel@gmail.com> <20200602094825.26396b06@collabora.com> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:46 +0200 Bean Huo wrote: > On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 09:48 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Bean, > > > > On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 23:10:43 +0200 > > Bean Huo wrote: > > > > > Hi Richard > > > would you please help us confirm below question?? > > > > Miquel suggested an approach that would allow us to deal with both > > JFFS2 > > and UBI/UBIFS without having any FS/wear-leveling specific code at > > the > > NAND level, but you decided to ignore his comments. Sorry but there's > > nothing we can do to help you if you don't listen to our > > recommendations. > > Expose this issue to FS layer, it is not good idea. that will impact > more code, and involve duplicated code. Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, you've lost the right to have your word in such design choices a long time ago. You can't deliberately lie to us for several weeks/months and expect us to trust you (your judgment) after that. Back to the actual proposal, it's something that came from a discussion we had with Miquel and Richard. It's certainly not perfect, but neither is the option of hardcoding a quirk for JFFS2/UBI/UBIFS in the Micron NAND driver. BTW, I think you completely occluded Miquel's suggestion to have a generic implementation at the MTD level for users who don't care about the pattern that's written to those 'soon-to-be-erased' blocks. See, that's one of the things I'm complaining about. You seem to ignore (don't know if it's deliberate or not) some of the suggestions we do. > > > > I've been quite disappointed by your behavior in the past, and it > > > continues. Recently you've taken Miquel's patches and claimed > > ownership > did you seem my recent patch? you can ignore that see this. I don't understand what you mean here, sorry. > > > > on them (probably not intentionally, but still) while you were > > clearly > > unable to rework your original series the way I suggested (which > > Miquel > > did after seeing you would never send new versions). > > seriously? Yes, seriously! > > > And when Miquel > > suggested a change to the implementation he had done based on the > > discussion we had with Richard, you decided to ignore it and pursue > > in > > the original direction. So, quite frankly, I'm really not convinced > > you > > can conduct such a change. > > > > As Miquel mentioned, we need richard's final comfirmation, > If he agrees with this proposal, I give up my current patch. > Actually, you need more than Richard's blessing. Miquel has to agree on the NAND changes, and even if I can't block the solution, I think I can at least give my opinion: anything that involves FS/wear-leveling specific code at the NAND level should be avoided. Given the discussion we had regarding JFFS2 and the cleanmarkers, I don't think we can come up with a solution that's safe for every users, hence the proposal to empower users with this responsibility.