Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp5587827wrg; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:33:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs/FvQGCC0JTD0hesg0S+u798FND5mne0u5S95rGVuZz1ogzqhoqmk+rdn/yJjzABSPq89S X-Received: by 10.99.120.201 with SMTP id t192mr19317593pgc.39.1520461981096; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:33:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1520461981; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Br4sgbf+G1p9JGtUcQ9A2YUQ0ulZerH5twmSvXEhQSOVHHMBIm7meLkRSLY12JfE4/ SlkZvN8qz//UhuE0y0FDrAlAZq4+hcxJ2ZXfJKMeHDw758ebw49ei9gbe2lyJUjrOiOr qwhKXZ/0/N8KdnQbV/nBMcsv7e/YMhsSs86/0vMdAG4BLQpOikmRF/h4/yr/L81VUbQ6 m8T7zkem/jpCSpluWD0CkMEeELl+cdO7I45QKweuCMYg+0Vr3+ofbEJJIXvNliRtbBJ3 d3uNT4SJzpUq3HSvkvJuE3B3XpgvQ4L9nSVJqPBdINLng58gbbL6jOYptns6ywGwGWS+ MW+Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=IQlJScVMRRLCSVTN2qpEkGblr/NfPUvJQBcN4d6mL/A=; b=QDOxDzeaWU6eQikAlx259s3JNiD1OU0oD3jpm9GTImDtb0xPfRVXki2qR3fB/5mfhC TEQ2qFFb/f90708ikaPyyc3PTlHRuEgNeOrL6h/r5TBSLlAGoH3zoxkUTHMW4BYDs/Ru t6BBWbdnzx8VFN+cFkLqsRICD5NZk94CHo/w0veVr525rctX1B38MO130iGQwM88TvGD IJiQNka2yTxQX580VK4X71PVeLxK30dU0nZ98Br56yXYxnjmWmhiXCFxiRCTDCFgEH4u Cw53pCNmd31BrmWqw4cNG80geiiVfb7dDdAn2oIsBh7uUiiy5zKIQ3zmGv7N39F65TZy 8SwA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e5si11946656pgf.646.2018.03.07.14.32.46; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934329AbeCGWbL (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:31:11 -0500 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:56037 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933415AbeCGWbK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:31:10 -0500 Received: by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 3B56E20784; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:31:07 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mail.bootlin.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT, URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 Received: from bbrezillon (91-160-177-164.subs.proxad.net [91.160.177.164]) by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B0222037F; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:30:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:30:57 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Pavel Machek Cc: David Woodhouse , Greg KH , Steve deRosier , Richard Weinberger , Boris Brezillon , dedekind1@gmail.com, tharvey@gateworks.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, marek.vasut@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr, computersforpeace@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: Reject MLC NAND Message-ID: <20180307233057.54bd35c3@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20180307221733.GE10438@amd> References: <20180303104554.5958-1-richard@nod.at> <20180306231805.GA28183@amd> <6772577.AmT7QaWTNU@blindfold> <20180307214342.GA9852@amd> <1520460673.31298.136.camel@infradead.org> <20180307221733.GE10438@amd> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Pavel, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:17:33 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2018-03-07 22:11:13, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 14:08 -0800, Steve deRosier wrote: > > > > > > To clarify one thing: the reason for this is MLC has actually never > > > been supported, nor worked properly. The fact that it kinda worked was > > > incidental and the cause of major problems for people due to that not > > > being clear. This patch only makes it explicit and avoids people > > > mistakenly trying to use UBIFS on MLC flash and risking their data and > > > products. To me, that's what's important. > > > > > > This is an important patch, even if all it does is keep people from > > > loosing data. It also changes the conversation from "I have a > > > corrupted UBIFS device, BTW it's on MLC..." to "What can we do to get > > > UBIFS to work on MLC". > > Well, for -stable I'd suggest printk(KERN_ALERT ...) but keep the > system running. > > > This is a bug fix. > > > > UBI on MLC never worked. It was a bug that we ever permitted it. This > > is now fixed. > > Yeah, well, so lets say I have a working hardware (maybe using > read-only UBI on MLC), update to next stable kernel, and now kernel > refuses to see the partition. Read-only does not save you from the read-disturb issue, and you even have to take care of programming the full erase-block on some MLC NANDs, which AFAIR is not done when updating a static volume. I have one simple question: did you ever play with MLC NANDs or are you just trolling? If you had, like Richard and I did when working on MLC support, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't play this "don't backport to stable" card. Now, if you volunteer to add reliable MLC support, I can send you a few boards to play with. I even have a "working but not so tested PoC" here [1] if you want to finish the job, but please don't do the mistake of thinking the fix is that simple. > > I'll certainly not consider this patch a bug fix. And apparently a lot of people disagree with you on this point, and I guess all of them had problems with MLC NANDs. > > Removing support for hardware that "only works by mistake" may be good > idea, but maybe it is slightly too surprising for a -stable. I wouldn't say "work by mistake" but "seems to work at first but in the end breaks", so definitely a candidate for -stable IMO. Regards, Boris [1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux/tree/nand/mlc -- Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com