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 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1NIfFa-0001dl-31 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:23:58 +0000 Subject: Re: UBIFS on kernel 2.6.24? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: David Jander In-Reply-To: <200912101019.45873.david.jander@protonic.nl> References: <200911231510.40294.david.jander@protonic.nl> <200912091140.03345.david.jander@protonic.nl> <1260356109.19669.1289.camel@localhost> <200912101019.45873.david.jander@protonic.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:23:26 +0200 Message-Id: <1260437006.12346.46.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 10:19 +0100, David Jander wrote: > > 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 :-( I'd put it this way: pull the back-port tree, try to reproduce the problem, and come back if it is still there. This will be faster than lengthy e-mail exchange :-) -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)