mtdutils and libubiio

mtdutils and libubiio

[Corentin Chary]

Hi,
Some time ago we made libubiio available at :
http://git.iksaif.net/?p=libubiio.git;a=summary
I wanted to know how it can be used in mtd-utils, so we can start
making patch for inclusion into mtd-utils.
The first thing I see is mkfs.ubifs, using libubiio we will be able to
run mkfs on an ubi volume. I believe it's
simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
Where can libubiio be used ?

Another question, do you use static Makefiles for a reason ? Maybe we
could move to CMake ?
Thanks

-- 
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net - http://uffs.org

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:49:54AM +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
>Hi,
>Some time ago we made libubiio available at :
>http://git.iksaif.net/?p=libubiio.git;a=summary
>I wanted to know how it can be used in mtd-utils, so we can start
>making patch for inclusion into mtd-utils.
>The first thing I see is mkfs.ubifs, using libubiio we will be able to
>run mkfs on an ubi volume. I believe it's
>simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
>Where can libubiio be used ?
>
>Another question, do you use static Makefiles for a reason ? Maybe we
>could move to CMake ?

We use them because they are simple.  There has been nothing to-date that
has really required anything else.  I have no experience with CMake, but
I'd rather avoid adding dependencies on it.

josh

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 05:49, Corentin Chary wrote:
> Some time ago we made libubiio available at :
> http://git.iksaif.net/?p=libubiio.git;a=summary
> I wanted to know how it can be used in mtd-utils, so we can start
> making patch for inclusion into mtd-utils.
> The first thing I see is mkfs.ubifs, using libubiio we will be able to
> run mkfs on an ubi volume. I believe it's
> simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
> Where can libubiio be used ?

search the archives ... some one already posted a method for libifying
the UBI code that exists in mtd-utils.  fixing up the minor remaining
issues with that patch seems saner than trying to merge a completely
unrelated code base.
-mike

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:49 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
> Hi,
> Some time ago we made libubiio available at :
> http://git.iksaif.net/?p=libubiio.git;a=summary
> I wanted to know how it can be used in mtd-utils, so we can start
> making patch for inclusion into mtd-utils.
> The first thing I see is mkfs.ubifs, using libubiio we will be able to
> run mkfs on an ubi volume. I believe it's
> simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
> Where can libubiio be used ?

Sure, go ahead.

> Another question, do you use static Makefiles for a reason ? Maybe we
> could move to CMake ?

I do not know CMake, buy I thought Makefiles work just fine.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Corentin Chary]

>
> search the archives ... some one already posted a method for libifying
> the UBI code that exists in mtd-utils.  fixing up the minor remaining
> issues with that patch seems saner than trying to merge a completely
> unrelated code base.
libubiio use code from mtd-utils and UBI, so it's not realy a
"completely unrelated code base".


>We use them because they are simple.  There has been nothing to-date that
> has really required anything else.  I have no experience with CMake, but
> I'd rather avoid adding dependencies on it.
Makefile are simple, but so is CMake. Adding a new shared library is
as simple as that :

add_library(ubiio SHARED libubiio.c)
set_target_properties (ubiio PROPERTIES VERSION 0.1 SOVERSION 0)

But I understand is a big dependence to add.

> I do not know CMake, buy I thought Makefiles work just fine.
Ok, I just wanted to know.

>> I believe it's
>> simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
>> Where can libubiio be used ?
> Sure, go ahead.
I'll see what can I do with that.

-- 
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 08:47, Corentin Chary wrote:
>> search the archives ... some one already posted a method for libifying
>> the UBI code that exists in mtd-utils.  fixing up the minor remaining
>> issues with that patch seems saner than trying to merge a completely
>> unrelated code base.
>
> libubiio use code from mtd-utils and UBI, so it's not realy a
> "completely unrelated code base".

you didnt indicate any relationship, nor did the git tree.  at any
rate, it's still an untested code base unlike the aforementioned patch
which has been tested and is in active use now.

>>We use them because they are simple.  There has been nothing to-date that
>> has really required anything else.  I have no experience with CMake, but
>> I'd rather avoid adding dependencies on it.
>
> Makefile are simple, but so is CMake. Adding a new shared library is
> as simple as that :

if you read the archives as i suggested, you'd see that shared
libraries are not desirable here.
-mike

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Corentin Chary]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:49 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Some time ago we made libubiio available at :
>> http://git.iksaif.net/?p=libubiio.git;a=summary
>> I wanted to know how it can be used in mtd-utils, so we can start
>> making patch for inclusion into mtd-utils.
>> The first thing I see is mkfs.ubifs, using libubiio we will be able to
>> run mkfs on an ubi volume. I believe it's
>> simpler than creating a image, and using other tools to write it to the volume.
>> Where can libubiio be used ?
>
> Sure, go ahead.
>
>> Another question, do you use static Makefiles for a reason ? Maybe we
>> could move to CMake ?
>
> I do not know CMake, buy I thought Makefiles work just fine.
>

Hi,
You'll find here some experiments:
http://git.iksaif.net/?p=users/iksaif/mtd-utils.git;a=summary

Before working on mkfs.ubifs I wanted to cleanup the mtd-utils dir, so
I tried some change,
including the use of CMake. As a lot of people here don't want to hear
about CMake, if the patchs
for mkfs are good enought, I'll rebase them on a vanilla version of mtd-utils.

What you'll find here:
- CMake "experiment" with dependencies check on zlib and libacl
- libubiio, provinding the same API the kernel does
- mkfs.ubifs using libubiio, can write the image directly on an ubi volume

libubiio need a very recent kernel with the new UBI ioctl()

It's not a finished work, it's more a request for comments ;).
thanks
-- 
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:22 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
> Hi,
> You'll find here some experiments:
> http://git.iksaif.net/?p=users/iksaif/mtd-utils.git;a=summary
> 
> Before working on mkfs.ubifs I wanted to cleanup the mtd-utils dir, so
> I tried some change,
> including the use of CMake. As a lot of people here don't want to hear
> about CMake, if the patchs
> for mkfs are good enought, I'll rebase them on a vanilla version of mtd-utils.

I have a pile of patches in my tree as well. I wait for dwmw2 to send
my "export subpage via sysfs" patch to Linus, and after this I'll
push my changes. They basically make libmtd use sysfs interface, but
there are some random minor libubi changes and fixes. I'll try to
push this ASAP.

Vs CMake. I do not know. I'm not very good in this at all. Mike kind
of maintains the build system in the mtd-utils, and he lately improved
it. So if you may convince him, probably. But the thing is that not
many people care about mtd-utils, and if you introduce CMake and then
disappear - who is going to maintain that ?

I personally think that if Makefile can do the same stuff, there is
no reason to change/add new build system only because it is fewer lines
in CMake.

> What you'll find here:
> - CMake "experiment" with dependencies check on zlib and libacl
> - libubiio, provinding the same API the kernel does
> - mkfs.ubifs using libubiio, can write the image directly on an ubi volume

Would you please send patches. It is so much more convenient to
people? Teaching mkfs.ubifs write directly into the volume sounds
nice, BTW.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Corentin Chary]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:22 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
>> Hi,
>> You'll find here some experiments:
>> http://git.iksaif.net/?p=users/iksaif/mtd-utils.git;a=summary
>>
>> Before working on mkfs.ubifs I wanted to cleanup the mtd-utils dir, so
>> I tried some change,
>> including the use of CMake. As a lot of people here don't want to hear
>> about CMake, if the patchs
>> for mkfs are good enought, I'll rebase them on a vanilla version of mtd-utils.
>
> I have a pile of patches in my tree as well. I wait for dwmw2 to send
> my "export subpage via sysfs" patch to Linus, and after this I'll
> push my changes. They basically make libmtd use sysfs interface, but
> there are some random minor libubi changes and fixes. I'll try to
> push this ASAP.

Ok, so it'll probably add change to libubiio because like libubi we
use some sysfs files.

> Vs CMake. I do not know. I'm not very good in this at all. Mike kind
> of maintains the build system in the mtd-utils, and he lately improved
> it. So if you may convince him, probably. But the thing is that not
> many people care about mtd-utils, and if you introduce CMake and then
> disappear - who is going to maintain that ?
>
> I personally think that if Makefile can do the same stuff, there is
> no reason to change/add new build system only because it is fewer lines
> in CMake.
Well CMake is easy to maintain when the base CMakefile is done. Adding programs
is done with add_executable(prog prog1.c prog2.c) for example. And things like
cross-compiling, installation, debug, external buid,  are builtin.
Also, it have some dependencies checking functionality
(find_package(ZLIB REQUIRED) to make sure zlib is present before
compiling).

Using CMake I was able to move all shared code into lib/ (no more
crc32.c in each dirs). It can be done
with Makefiles, but it's more tricky.

wc `find . -name CMakeLists.txt`
  14   29  416 ./jffs/CMakeLists.txt
   7   21  213 ./mkfs.ubifs/CMakeLists.txt
  26   71  856 ./lib/CMakeLists.txt
  79  258 2511 ./CMakeLists.txt
  35   68  990 ./ubi-utils/CMakeLists.txt
  38   90 1474 ./mtd-utils/CMakeLists.txt
 199  537 6460 total

wc Makefile common.mk ubi-utils/Makefile mkfs.ubifs/Makefile
  66  148 1728 Makefile
  71  200 1772 common.mk
  59  172 1514 ubi-utils/Makefile
  23   48  502 mkfs.ubifs/Makefile
 219  568 5516 total

It's why I think maintaining a build system based on CMake is easier.
So if Mike is ok, I'll be happy to
help. If he is not, let's work with raw Makefiles.

But it's clear that moving to CMake is *certainly not a priority*
here, sot let's talk about usefull things: mkfs =).

>> What you'll find here:
>> - CMake "experiment" with dependencies check on zlib and libacl
>> - libubiio, provinding the same API the kernel does
>> - mkfs.ubifs using libubiio, can write the image directly on an ubi volume
>
> Would you please send patches. It is so much more convenient to
> people? Teaching mkfs.ubifs write directly into the volume sounds
> nice, BTW.
>

Well as I said it's just an experiment right now.
Now that it works, I'll be able to send a series of patch with small
and smooth changes.
I'm not sure of the dtype I chose, but you'll be able to check that
later with a clean patch.
Breaking the whole buildsystem is certainly not the right way for
merging such a thing... it's just that the current one is not really
easy to work with.

-- 
Corentin Chary
http://xf.iksaif.net - http://uffs.org

Re: mtdutils and libubiio

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 10:41 +0200, Corentin Chary wrote:
> >> What you'll find here:
> >> - CMake "experiment" with dependencies check on zlib and libacl
> >> - libubiio, provinding the same API the kernel does
> >> - mkfs.ubifs using libubiio, can write the image directly on an ubi volume
> >
> > Would you please send patches. It is so much more convenient to
> > people? Teaching mkfs.ubifs write directly into the volume sounds
> > nice, BTW.
> >
> 
> Well as I said it's just an experiment right now.
> Now that it works, I'll be able to send a series of patch with small
> and smooth changes.

Just go ahead with this :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)