From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1TQx9Y-000642-01 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:21:33 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:20:36 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q9O9LNwm51118142 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:21:24 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q9O9LMwj014080 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:21:23 +1100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([9.123.236.215]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q9O9KwIw013566 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:21:22 +1100 Message-ID: <5087B304.8010903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:21:08 +0800 From: hejianet MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [question]MTD:unstable bit issues? References: <50877953.9040602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5087AC58.1000402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Thomas till now, we have no evidence that it is a jffs2. we only observed a ubi error msg(not 100% sure it caused this hole): Oct 15 20:09:10 (none) kernel: UBI error: ubi_io_write error -5 while writing 2048 bytes to PEB 1663:20480, written 0 bytes Besides, it only appeared in power-cut stress cut, so I suspect it is relevant to "unstable bits issue". from google information, this issue appears in both nand and nor flash, but more frequently in nand. On 2012-10-24 17:01, Thomas.Betker@rohde-schwarz.com wrote: > Hello Jia: > >> Yes, we use jffs2. >> How did u solve your bug? :) >>>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>>> 2)a 4k bytes hole with all 0 in the flash file. >>>> ----------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately, we didn't solve it. Some day, it was simply gone; I have no > idea what had changed. I couldn't reproduce it anymore, so I couldn't do > any further analysis. > > Anyway, most likely this is not a NAND issue or MTD issue, but a JFFS2 > issue. And I would certainly want to hear about it if you manage to find > and fix it ... > > Best regards, > Thomas > > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ > > >