Dear Richard, We appreciate your precious advice. We understood the quality status of kernel 3.2.26. >From now on, we would like to backport from the latest UBI and UBIFS. Do you think that it is enough to backport the next part? - drivers/mtd - drivers/mtd/ubi - fs/ubifs Best regards, Katsuaki Takei/Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd./JP > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 6:20 PM > To: 武井 克明 <takei744@xxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Questions about ubifs,ubi and mtd? > > Hello Katsuaki Takei, > > Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018, 02:07:33 CET schrieb 武井 克明: > > Dear Richard, > > Thank you for your comment. > > We are using kernel 3.2.26 for reasons. > > I can not update the kernel right now. > > 3.2.x is dead. > It contains bugs, security problems, is unmaintained, etc... > Shipping with 3.2.x is a very bad idea. > > > To everyone > > Is there a lot of fixes and patches for processing that causes abnormal > behavior as I asked you? > > We hope to solve the problem by patch to kernel 3.2.26. if possible. > > Shyly, I have little experience of developing ubifs or ubi, and I can not yet > figure out which program is likely to be involved in this abnormal operation(ref. > Note*). > > > > Note*: > > Nevertheless, when loading our program from 'rootfs-a', trying to read the > inode with the ubifs_read_node() function will result in "bad node type" (ex: 193 > but expected 9) and the LEB can not be read with the expected value. (Even > though you do not have write access to rootfs) In addition, the file size may be 0 > byte in some cases. > > The problem could be anything. > Both UBI and UBIFS faced tons of fixes over the last years. > Maybe it is also bug somewhere else. > > You could try backporting the whole UBI and UBIFS subsystems to your kernel. > > Thanks, > //richard > ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/