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 esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Pi7nB-0002Rm-D4 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:00:22 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so1531196bwz.36 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:00:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: UBIFS incompatibilities due to min_io_size adaptions? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Holger Brunck In-Reply-To: <4D402DA7.8050101@keymile.com> References: <4D402DA7.8050101@keymile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:49:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1296056991.2606.10.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Andreas Huber , Anatolij Gustschin , "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 Wed, 2011-01-26 at 15:20 +0100, Holger Brunck wrote: > Hi all, > we use UBI and UBIFS on NOR and NAND based systems and kernel 2.6.33. In the > last days we applied the latest UBI and MTD patches for the min I/O size. > > Due to commit a121f643993474548fe98144514c50dd4f3dbe76 UBI: use > mtd->writebufsize to set minimal I/O unit size > now the min I/O size is equal to the writebuffersize of the flash. Oh, this is really bad. Thankfully we still have time to revert the change and think about proper backward-compatible solution. > This caused incompatibilites in the UBIFS. We have an UBIFS on a board on a NOR > flash created in the past without the patches. Now with a newer SW and a newer > kernel which has the latest fixes we can't mount the old UBIFS anymore. > > UBIFS error (pid 865): validate_sb: min. I/O unit mismatch: 8 in superblock, 64 real > UBIFS error (pid 865): validate_sb: bad superblock, error 1 > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on ubi0:cfg, > missing codepage or other error > > If we reformate the UBIFS everything is ok, but we got a problem with the older > SW image: > UBIFS error (pid 865): validate_sb: min. I/O unit mismatch: 64 in > superblock, 8 real > UBIFS error (pid 865): validate_sb: bad superblock, error 1 > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on ubi0:cfg, > missing codepage or other error > > Is there a way to solve this problem? I do not hope that the only solution is to > remove these patch. Yes, the first solution is to revert the UBI patch. There seems to be more work than we thought. Probably we need to add notion of writebufsize to UBI and UBIFS as well. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)