Hi Artem, On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 10:30:25 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 09:40 +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/kapi.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/kapi.c > > index d4b2e87..e9e9ecb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/kapi.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/kapi.c > > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ubi_volume_desc *ubi_open_volume(int ubi_num, int vol_id, int mode) > > desc->mode = mode; > > > > mutex_lock(&ubi->ckvol_mutex); > > - if (!vol->checked) { > > + if (!vol->checked && !vol->skip_check) { > > /* This is the first open - check the volume */ > > err = ubi_check_volume(ubi, vol_id); > > if (err < 0) { > > Did you deliberately did not add a similar check to 'vol_cdev_write()' ? > You want to skip checking on load but do have the checking after volume update ? Yep, it's on purpose, I asked Quentin to keep the test on the update volume path. > Looks a bit inconsistent to me. At the very least deserves a comment in > 'vol_cdev_write()' about why 'skip_check' flag is ignored there. Well, I thought checking the CRC just after updating the volume made sense, just to make sure things were written correctly on the medium. Let's add a comment explaining why we keep the check here, unless you see a strong reason to get rid of this check in the update path. Regards, Boris