From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9] helo=mail.free-electrons.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WCmSV-0003Nl-OL for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:43:20 +0000 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:42:46 +0100 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ubi: Introduce block devices for UBI volumes Message-ID: <20140210094246.659e876a@skate> In-Reply-To: <20140208225149.GA22376@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Frysinger , Artem Bityutskiy , Richard Weinberger , 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: , Dear Willy Tarreau, On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 23:51:49 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > 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. Why can't you use ubi_updatevol to do the update of the squashfs image? I.e instead of updating through the block layer, you update at the UBI layer level. No? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com