From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PO89t-0000j6-9w for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:21:13 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so7443557bwz.36 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:21:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: UBIFS oops after remount ro From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Wolfgang Wegner In-Reply-To: <20101202091733.GM23237@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> <1291260934.14534.6.camel@koala> <20101202091733.GM23237@leila.ping.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:20:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1291292433.2526.26.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, 2010-12-02 at 10:17 +0100, Wolfgang Wegner wrote: > Hi Artem, > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:35:34AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > Mostly vendors change drivers and board files. They usually do not touch > > core functionality. So you can try to merge 2.6.32 > > there had in fact been some special ARM and/or kirkwood things in this > 2.6.32 release, but meanwhile this is all integrated into mainline, as > far as I can see. > > > Probably 2.6.35 would be good. > > I merged our (very few) local changes into 2.6.36 and am now running > this. > > > 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 :-( > > Thank you very much for your hints and help so far! > > The big result I can give is that I already got this oops once with > 2.6.36, too - but could not reproduce it. I also have some other thing > to fix right now, but in case I get back to the problem, I will of > course post results (if any) - thanks to you I now got some pointers > where I can start debugging, this is already great and valuable help. The same oops? If yes, then this is not 2.6.32-specific issue, then you should preserve your 2.6.32 setup and dig further, I think. Having a setup where you can reproduce the bug is very nice thing :-) -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)