From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1bNMus-0000BX-Ca for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:21:42 +0000 Message-ID: <1468426862.18533.55.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: UBIFS orphans and ro-mounts From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Richard Weinberger , Boris Brezillon Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:21:02 +0300 In-Reply-To: <57863A51.6030205@sigma-star.at> References: <57863442.1000303@sigma-star.at> <1468414098.18533.34.camel@gmail.com> <57863A51.6030205@sigma-star.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 14:55 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > A new mount option is an option, true. > That said, the real solution is that u-boot (and other bootloaders) > should not mount UBIFS and use static volumes. > But currently the opposite is happening on most systems I get my > hands on. :( May be orphans could be handled in background?