Latest UBI/UBIFS requires DebugFs?

Latest UBI/UBIFS requires DebugFs?

[Bill Pringlemeir]

I have pulled the latest UBI/UBIFS from
git://git.infradead.org/users/dedekind/ubifs-v2.6.36.git.  I think that
the same issue may exist on the head.

If your root device is ubifs and you do not configure with
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS, then several functions will fail and the root will not
be mounted.  Depending on other configurations, you might not get any
error messages.

It appears that ubi_debugfs_init_dev, ubi_debugfs_init,
dbg_debugfs_init_fs, and dbg_debugfs_init rely on DEBUGFS and return
errors when creating DEBUGFS files.

I think either we could conditionalize these functions to return 0 when
DEBUGFS is not present or use a '#error UBI/UBIFS not supported without
DebugFs'.

I think maybe this was an over zealous commit to get good bug reports
and the DEBUGFS itself is not needed, but just the other printk stuff in 
the debug.c files?

I can submit a patch, but I think the explanation above is probably
enough for someone else with a better understanding of the structure.

Regards,
Bill Pringlemeir.

Re: Latest UBI/UBIFS requires DebugFs?

[Bill Pringlemeir]

Arrgh.  Sorry for this noise.  I missed this post,

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2012-June/042091.html

I guess I need to apply those patches to the back port.

On  7 Jun 2012, bpringle@sympatico.ca wrote:


> I have pulled the latest UBI/UBIFS from
> git://git.infradead.org/users/dedekind/ubifs-v2.6.36.git.  I think that
> the same issue may exist on the head.
>
> If your root device is ubifs and you do not configure with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_FS, then several functions will fail and the root will not
> be mounted.  Depending on other configurations, you might not get any
> error messages.
>
> It appears that ubi_debugfs_init_dev, ubi_debugfs_init,
> dbg_debugfs_init_fs, and dbg_debugfs_init rely on DEBUGFS and return
> errors when creating DEBUGFS files.
>
> I think either we could conditionalize these functions to return 0 when
> DEBUGFS is not present or use a '#error UBI/UBIFS not supported without
> DebugFs'.
>
> I think maybe this was an over zealous commit to get good bug reports
> and the DEBUGFS itself is not needed, but just the other printk stuff in
> the debug.c files?
>
> I can submit a patch, but I think the explanation above is probably
> enough for someone else with a better understanding of the structure.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Pringlemeir.

Re: Latest UBI/UBIFS requires DebugFs?

[Artem Bityutskiy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 336 bytes --]

On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:09 -0400, Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> Arrgh.  Sorry for this noise.  I missed this post,
> 
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2012-June/042091.html
> 
> I guess I need to apply those patches to the back port.

I will push them to the backport trees.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]