On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:19:08PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > Hi, > > in case a UBIFS needs recovery (unclean write or whatever on NOR > flash) it is possible that barebox fails to do so while Linux suceeds. > The main cause, IMHO, is that Linux takes max_write_size into account > (starting with commit 2765df7da540687c4d57ca840182122f074c5b9c "UBIFS: > use max_write_size during recovery") while barebox doesn't. Apparently > is_last_write (fs/ubifs/recovery.c) results differently due to that > fact which explains why recovery progress differently. I don't know > which linux version the ubifs code in barebox is taken from but I > guess this needs to be updated. Are there any plans? The barebox UBIFS code is taken from U-Boot 2013.07 which is taken from Linux-2.6.29-rc6, so indeed the code is quite old. U-Boot has updated UBIFS support to Linux-4.2. The question is if we update UBIFS from U-Boot or directly from the Kernel, I have no idea which way is easier. Currently there are no plans to update UBIFS, but of course you are invited to create them ;) Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
