From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48881E98.5000703@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:18:00 +0300 From: Adrian Hunter MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com" Subject: Re: Problem mounting a UBIFS volume References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com wrote: > Artem, > > Sorry for the delay in replying, I was on holiday for a couple of weeks > and it's taken me a while to get my brain wrapped back around what I was > working on when I left :). > > Artem Bityutskiy wrote on 07/04/2008 06:02:29 AM: > >> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 22:18 -0700, Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com wrote: >>> UBIFS error (pid 842): check_lpt_crc:invalid crc in LPT node: crc 2bbb > >>> calc a5a5 >>> UBIFS error (pid 842): ubifs_read_nnode: error -22 reading nnode at > 8:6150 >>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on ubi0:bob, >>> missing codepage or other error >>> In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try >>> dmesg | tail or so >> AFAIU, you still use a small flash and small image. So the only change >> was your MTD change. Are you sure it is not the MTD change which is to >> blame? Can you reproduce this error without your MTD change? >> > > Yes I can and here's what I've found. I pulled the latest vanilla kernel > from Linus' tree (congratulations on getting UBIFS in BTW, very cool), > pulled the latest mkfs.ubifs, and did an entirely new clone of mtd-utils > (I wanted to get rid of my modifications). So there are NONE of my MTD > changes in any of the code I'm currently using. I also reset my driver to > only recognize 2GiB of NAND. Before I left I was starting to get > suspicious of mkfs.ubifs, so I ran the following experiment this morning. > I used mkfs.ubifs to create two different images of the same filesystem > (one for up to 2GiB devices and one for up to 8GiB devices) as follows: > > $ mkfs.ubifs -r x103/ -m 2048 -e 129024 -c 16384 -o x103.img > $ mkfs.ubifs -r x103/ -m 2048 -e 129024 -c 65536 -o x103_large.img > > If I understand things right (which usually isn't the case :-\), these > should be more or less the same, because the -c option is just specifying > a MAXIMUM volume size the image can be put onto. An ls -l command gives > the following: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 29159424 Jul 23 13:31 x103.img > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 30449664 Jul 23 14:08 x103_large.img > > So they match pretty close in size. I can burn both images to my NAND > without errors by: > > $ ubiupdatevol /dev/ubi0_0 x103*.img > > When I try to mount the filesystem that comes from x103.img (the one for > the 'smaller' NAND flash) it mounts just fine, I can cd to it, create > directories/files, etc. However, when I try to mount the filesystem from > x103_large.img, it fails with the following errors: > > UBIFS error (pid 863): check_lpt_crc: invalid crc in LPT node: crc f486 > calc e0b > UBIFS error (pid 863): ubifs_read_nnode: error -22 reading nnode at 8:1356 > > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on ubi0:bob, > missing codepage or other error > In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try > dmesg | tail or so > > So, here's a couple of questions? Does mkfs.ubifs and UBIFS calculate the > CRC identically or could there be a difference that's causing the problem? > Does ubiupdatevol touch the CRC and that's what's causing the problem? A > complicating factor, I'm running on an MPC8349E, which is big endian and I > know we've tripped across an endian issue in the past. I've tried > eliminating endian issues by compiling and running all tools native on the > 8347, but could that be a factor? > > I'm going to start by digging into mkfs.ubifs on the assumption that the > large -c parameter is causing it to some how miscalculate the CRC, but any > pointers of where else the problem could be are greatly appreciated. Almost certainly mkfs.ubifs has screwed up the LPT. That is because the LPT is a tree that is sized according to the maximum size that the file system can grow to i.e. the size given by the -c option I will look at this. Regards Adrian