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 1WCrji-0005CF-6u for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:21:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:20:27 -0300 From: Ezequiel Garcia To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ubi: Introduce block devices for UBI volumes Message-ID: <20140210142026.GB15607@localhost> References: <52F6BA07.60707@nod.at> <20140208231501.GG22376@1wt.eu> <52F6BCCD.5070302@nod.at> <20140208233758.GH22376@1wt.eu> <52F6C916.2030506@nod.at> <20140209075157.GJ22376@1wt.eu> <20140210024827.GB9643@localhost> <1392017750.31031.8.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <20140210082714.GB10872@localhost> <20140210084616.GP22376@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140210084616.GP22376@1wt.eu> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Mike Frysinger , Richard Weinberger , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Michael Opdenacker , Piergiorgio Beruto , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , Willy Tarreau List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:46:16AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > > If write support has 0 or 1.5 customers and it was not tested > > > extensively, and never used in any kind of production, I am not sure it > > > is needed to be there. But let's first hear your answers. > > > > > > > No, this hasn't been tested intensively and I'm pretty sure nobody would > > ever put it in production before conducting such tests himself. > > For sure, but conversely, disabling it in the code would result in > nobody ever testing it ! > I agree completely and it's why I wanted to have it available. > > > > If you really think distros will enable it and users will "just it", without > > thinking about the consequences, then I'd say let's just remove it. > > In my opinion, this would result in users falling back to mtdblock as > they currently to when they want a block device. This is even worse. > > I'd really like to have this feature as a standard one, it shortens > the gap which exists between MTD and eMMC which is becoming more and > more common these days, precisely because of the difficulty to deal > with NAND directly while eMMC provides the abstraction which offers > more flexibility. > Artem, I'd say it's your call. Want me to drop write support or not? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to conduct extensive testings on that, but just simple read/write test on some filesystem as Willy did on ext2 Quite frankly, I want to see this merged as soon as possible, so if we are still having second thoughts, I'll submit a read-only version and we'll see about adding write support later. -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com