On Thursday 03 March 2016 09:28:56, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:16:13AM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 March 2016 20:56:13, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I still wonder if this problem should have been avoided in the first > > place. It seems like the change in the kernel is like chaning the > > on-disk-format. > > BTW what happens after the failed recovery? Is the filesystem not > readable? It is not even mounted, neither in barebox in current state, nor e.g. using mtdram in Linux with a different writebuf size. Recovery fails so does mounting ubifs. Once recovery suceeded everybody is happy again. BTW: mtdram in barebox would suffer the same problem, writebufsize is fixed 64. > > > > > Currently there are no plans to update UBIFS, but of course you are > > > invited to create them ;) > > > > I expected an answer like that ;-) I did a quick compare and there are > > a lot of changes in barebox upon the code taken from u-boot. AFAICS > > those are not documented :( > > I wouldn't say that. I just checked out barebox 551b412 (the initial > ubifs commit) and U-Boot 2013.07 and copied over the ubifs files from > U-Boot to barebox. The diff doesn't look too bad, it nearly only shows > the changes necessary to adopt to the barebox filesystem layer. > I assume fs/ubifs/ubifs.c can be left nearly unmodified. The rest is > copying over the kernel files and boxing them through the compiler > (which indeed might be a significant amount of work given the size of > the code) Well, linux and u-boot, to some degree at least, IIRC gained support for fastmap, xattr and even optional atime support. Maybe it won't that easy anymore. Best regards, Alexander -- Dipl.-Inf. Alexander Stein SYS TEC electronic GmbH alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Legal and Commercial Address: Am Windrad 2 08468 Heinsdorfergrund Germany Office: +49 (0) 3765 38600-0 Fax: +49 (0) 3765 38600-4100 Managing Directors: Director Technology/CEO: Dipl.-Phys. Siegmar Schmidt; Director Commercial Affairs/COO: Dipl. Ing. (FH) Armin von Collrepp Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Chemnitz, HRB 28082; USt.-Id Nr. DE150534010 _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
