From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QjPCR-00055U-3I for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:19:59 +0000 Received: by iwn35 with SMTP id 35so5292114iwn.36 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Regression in handling of unsafe UBI shutdown From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Daniel Mack Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:21:18 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1311139283.20738.150.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Sven Neumann , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Hunter Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:57 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > UBIFS: recovery needed > Error reading superblock on volume 'ubi:RootFS'! > UBIFS not mounted, use ubifs mount to mount volume first! > Wrong Image Format for bootm command > ERROR: can't get kernel image! > > > Hence my question is: were there any radical changes in the UBI/UBIFS > code on the kernel side that make older code not like the new content > anymore? Daniel, sorry, I have no time to look at this now, could you please try to bisect the issue? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy