From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XQviv-0001TF-QY for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:59:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1410170318.10764.119.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: Ubi patch proposition for 3.10.y From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: jean-philippe francois Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:58:38 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: richard@nod.at, "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 14:26 +0200, jean-philippe francois wrote: > Hi, > > I think commit 4b3e0a25... [1] (UBI: Call scan_all() with correct > offset in error case) should be added to 3.10.y stable branch. This is the "fastmap" fix, and fastmap is called experimental. We do not have enough confidence it is production ready. Specifically, I'd like to hear someone doing extensive power-cut testing with this feature. The power-cut tolerance is one of the "selling features" of UBI/UBIFS, after all. Therefore I never added fastmap fixes to the stable queue. But if someone is willing to put all the fastmap fixes together, add the "stable tags" with the right kernel version "markings", and test for few older kernels, then I will recommend them to be included to the stable. Although I am not sure the stable maintainers would like accept them. But I do not recommend adding this single patch to the stable queue. But better, if people started paying more attention to "fastmap", we may agree that from now on we are careful about the sending the fixes to the stable queue. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy