From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lilium.sigma-star.at ([109.75.188.150]:48682 "EHLO lilium.sigma-star.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754846AbeCHP1q (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:27:46 -0500 From: Richard Weinberger To: dedekind1@gmail.com Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Cyrille Pitchen , Mark Vasut , Boris BREZILLON , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , tharvey@gateworks.com, stable , Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: Reject MLC NAND Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:28:50 +0100 Message-ID: <10429741.dU3vzh71GH@blindfold> In-Reply-To: <1520521275.20980.41.camel@gmail.com> References: <20180303104554.5958-1-richard@nod.at> <3797589.z8fAhu5iDP@blindfold> <1520521275.20980.41.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Artem, Am Donnerstag, 8. M�rz 2018, 16:01:15 CET schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 15:43 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > As stated by David Woodhouse, it was a huge mistake by UBI to not > > reject MLC > > NAND from the very beginning. > > Correction: when we were developing UBI/UBIFS and upstreamed them, MLC > was widely used yet we did not really know about it. So there was > nothing to reject yet. You mean *not* widely used? > The mistake is that we did not add the reject timely. When people > started reporting MLC issues we were answering that UBI/UBIFS stack > needs more work to make MLC safe to use, and we hoped someone would do > the work. True. TBH Boris and I also thought that adding MLC support is not a that big deal... Thanks, //richard