From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cluster-a.mailcontrol.com ([85.115.52.190]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1NJ3tG-0003eb-OA for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:42:37 +0000 Received: from mail.mta.it (mail.mta.it [89.96.171.250]) by rly14a.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id nBBBgG1Q031113 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:42:19 GMT Message-ID: <4B223017.5090505@mta.it> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:42:15 +0100 From: Fortini Matteo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: UBIFS on kernel 2.6.24? References: <200911231510.40294.david.jander@protonic.nl> <200912091140.03345.david.jander@protonic.nl> <1260356109.19669.1289.camel@localhost> <200912101019.45873.david.jander@protonic.nl> In-Reply-To: <200912101019.45873.david.jander@protonic.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Up for the parent. Unfortunately, MPC512x support is not in the mainstream kernel yet! Thank you for your good work anyway. Matteo Il 10/12/2009 10.19, David Jander ha scritto: > On Wednesday 09 December 2009 11:55:09 am Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:40 +0100, David Jander wrote: >> >>> Back on topic: >>> I have repeated the nand-tests on another board, and they ran just fine, >>> repeating for quite a while without any error, so I guess that proves >>> that the hardware and nand-driver are working reasonably well. OTOH, The >>> two failed systems, also were running for several months with very heavy >>> flash-disk I/O (not as much as to wear it out though, there's still >>> roughly 40% free space on the UBI volume). It has gone through installing >>> ubuntu on it, and building several debian packages from source, etc... >>> all apparently without problems, until one day 'ls -l /etc/' just failed. >>> I will try to pull from ubifs-v2.6.24.git, but I'd like to know your >>> opinion on what the chances are that this update will fix the problem or >>> bug that caused this corruption? >>> >> I cannot tell for sure, it may. >> > Ok, thanks. > > >> What I can say for sure is that I personally is not very interested in >> solving problems for too old UBIFS code-base. Well, problems I can >> reproduce here, in my setup, are OK, but subtle problems which I cannot >> reproduce here are not OK - I really want to be sure UBI/UBIFS are >> up-to-date and this is not something we already fixed. >> > I understand. All I wanted is to see if someone would jump up and say > something like: "Oh, no, this old version is known to be broken, you need some > important bug-fixes that went into the updates". That obviously didn't happen, > so I know what I am facing: Update to the latest version, test it thoroughly, > and hope for the best :-( > > >> BTW, from now on 2.6.24 back-port support is dropped. But it is >> up-to-date _now_ :-) >> > Ouch. Unfortunately for our platform there is no reasonable chance I could > move to a newer kernel anytime soon (still no mainline support) :-( > > Thanks a lot. > > Best regards, > > -