From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com ([209.85.161.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PNzxR-0007lf-No for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:35:48 +0000 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so2864677fxm.36 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:35:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: UBIFS oops after remount ro From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Wolfgang Wegner In-Reply-To: <20101129170223.GF23237@leila.ping.de> References: <20101126135005.GV23237@leila.ping.de> <1290785057.2552.14.camel@localhost> <20101129131807.GB23237@leila.ping.de> <1291040469.2141.10.camel@koala> <20101129151729.GE23237@leila.ping.de> <1291049157.2141.17.camel@koala> <20101129170223.GF23237@leila.ping.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:35:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1291260934.14534.6.camel@koala> 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 Mon, 2010-11-29 at 18:02 +0100, Wolfgang Wegner wrote: > Hi Artem, > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > I cannot judge for sure, but this looks like non-UBIFS issue in 2.6.32, > > so merging the stable 2.6.32.X tree can help. I make sense in general to > > merge stable tree as well. > > the problem is I still have some "marvell" tree > (from git.marvell.com/orion.git) and am not sure if there is anything > special in it. Mostly vendors change drivers and board files. They usually do not touch core functionality. So you can try to merge 2.6.32 > Would the "stock" 2.6.35.x from > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > be an option in your opinion, too? I seem to remember the marvell tree > was completely merged in between (right now digging through the commits > to make it clear), so I could get an all shiny, new kernel when having > to do any kind of merge at all... Probably 2.6.35 would be good. Anyway, the problem is that I do not really have time to drive you through debugging of your issue. I only have time to get "big" results from you and provide some help in form of my opinion :-( -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)