From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JoZSk-0004uf-SM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:32:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] slight UBI scan time improvement From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Nancy In-Reply-To: References: <1208882552.11721.13.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:32:51 +0300 Message-Id: <1208935971.11721.20.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:15 +0800, Nancy wrote: > I have tried, as you said slightly improve the scan time, slightly, > even don't feel it exist. en....I don't like the two stages displaying > when ubi attach to mtd. First time I see it, I doubt the NFS server is > too busy. It is just like a kid playing sliding board who do not like > being block in the middle, or a group of men "cheers!", then drink off > the beer. Oh, don't make it stop in the half way. Hmm, may be. But the reason for this is that we want to see this information even if UBI refuses your MTD device later. > You still do not add patch to handle write fail issue, a little disappoin= tment. I do not see any UBI/UBIFS issue in your case. The issue was that you abused your flash using wrong tools, I think. Use the "ubiformat" utility which we have recently implemented - the issue should go. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)