From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144] helo=radon.swed.at) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WCs3H-000602-JW for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:41:40 +0000 Message-ID: <52F8E508.1020207@nod.at> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:41:12 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ezequiel Garcia , Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ubi: Introduce block devices for UBI volumes 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> <20140210142026.GB15607@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20140210142026.GB15607@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Mike Frysinger , Michael Opdenacker , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , 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: , Am 10.02.2014 15:20, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia: > 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 Please, at lest run xfstests. :) > 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. > If you have addressed the issues I pointed out feel free to add Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger Thanks, //richard