From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 00:01:59 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ubi: Introduce block devices for UBI volumes Message-ID: <20140208230159.GC22376@1wt.eu> References: <1391027881-8354-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1391027881-8354-2-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <20140208225149.GA22376@1wt.eu> <52F6B602.3030905@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52F6B602.3030905@nod.at> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Mike Frysinger , Artem Bityutskiy , Michael Opdenacker , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Tim Bird , Ezequiel Garcia , Piergiorgio Beruto , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 11:56:02PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 08.02.2014 23:51, schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:37:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >>> +config MTD_UBI_BLOCK_WRITE_SUPPORT > >>> + bool "Enable write support (DANGEROUS)" > >>> + default n > >>> + depends on MTD_UBI_BLOCK > >>> + select MTD_UBI_BLOCK_CACHED > >>> + help > >>> + This is a *very* dangerous feature. Using a regular block-oriented > >>> + filesystem might impact heavily on a flash device wear. > >>> + Use with extreme caution. > >>> + > >>> + If in doubt, say "N". > >> > >> I really vote for dropping write support at all. > > > > Why ? When you put a read-only filesystem there such as squashfs, the > > only writes you'll have will be updates, and write support will be the > > only way to update the filesystem. So removing write support seriously > > impacts the usefulness of the feature itself. > > So almost everyone has to enable MTD_UBI_BLOCK_WRITE_SUPPORT? > I thought there is another way to fill the volume with data... I personally don't see the use of disabling write support on anything unless the code is broken. Better emit a warning upon first write to mention that there is limited or no wear leveling. But preventing all reasonable users from using a useful feature just to save a few ignorant from shooting themselves in the foot is non-sense in my opinion. Why not disable write support to ubifs as well then, so that we're sure that the most demanding ones will never wear their NANDs ? And why not disable mtdblock so that nobody can mount them as ext2 ? If people can already do bad things more easily without this code, there is no reason to remove the feature. Regards, Willy