From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Sheng Yong <shengyong1@huawei.com>,
hujianyang <hujianyang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] UBIFS recovery
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:48:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54D89E87.2060601@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423481807.2573.56.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Am 09.02.2015 um 12:36 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> Richard,
>
> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 12:04 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> My points are:
>> - If UBIFS can do a better job in dealing with corruptions, fix/improve it.
>
> Right.
>
>> - Having a debugfs/fsck would be a good tool for people like me that have to analyze/fix UBI/UBIFS failures.
>
> Right. I think no one denies this. Correct, and I agree on this.
>
>> - Having an UBIFS "force" mode *will* be abused in horrid ways.
>
> I did not see anyone suggesting this. Was this suggested?
>
> As I read it, Steve just expressed a high-level user standpoint: the
> more you can do without external tools the better. I did not see him
> suggesting "just mount at any price".
It was not directly suggested by Steve, sorry if I was not clear about that!
I get such requests rather often from customers and therefore I'm sick of explaining
why this is a bad idea and quite nervous because most of the time vendors try to hide
issues in their software stack when they ask for such an option.
That said, if we define clearly in which situations UBIFS can safely mount R/O I'm happy.
But please make this new mount option opt-in and disabled by default.
Thanks,
//richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-09 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-05 9:47 [RFC] UBIFS recovery hujianyang
2015-02-05 13:09 ` shengyong
2015-02-06 17:21 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-05 15:08 ` Steve deRosier
2015-02-05 23:36 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 12:08 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-06 17:26 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-06 17:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-06 17:40 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-06 17:43 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 3:00 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 7:56 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 8:26 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-09 11:04 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 11:36 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-09 11:48 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2015-02-09 2:48 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 3:09 ` hujianyang
2015-02-06 17:02 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-09 2:34 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 7:51 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-09 7:57 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 10:38 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 11:05 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-02-09 11:23 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 11:18 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-02-09 12:02 ` hujianyang
2015-02-09 12:12 ` Ricard Wanderlof
2015-02-09 12:38 ` hujianyang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54D89E87.2060601@nod.at \
--to=richard@nod.at \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=derosier@gmail.com \
--cc=hujianyang@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=shengyong1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox