Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <aabedbd547708a52b8bf8e0d10ba10e994acb54f.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, vigneshr@ti.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
        derosier@gmail.com, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20200602094825.26396b06@collabora.com>
References: <20200525121814.31934-1-huobean@gmail.com>
         <829d76189beff5a50ddc56123d22bff3aa6a3378.camel@gmail.com>
         <0a4fc94213ca5c2040796a66942f626587483721.camel@gmail.com>
         <20200602094825.26396b06@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 09:48 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Bean,
> 
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 23:10:43 +0200
> Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Richard 
> > would you please help us confirm below question??
> 
> Miquel suggested an approach that would allow us to deal with both
> JFFS2
> and UBI/UBIFS without having any FS/wear-leveling specific code at
> the
> NAND level, but you decided to ignore his comments. Sorry but there's
> nothing we can do to help you if you don't listen to our
> recommendations.

Expose this issue to FS layer, it is not good idea. that will impact
more code, and involve duplicated code.
> 
> I've been quite disappointed by your behavior in the past, and it

> continues. Recently you've taken Miquel's patches and claimed
> ownership
did you seem my recent patch? you can ignore that see this.


> on them (probably not intentionally, but still) while you were
> clearly
> unable to rework your original series the way I suggested (which
> Miquel
> did after seeing you would never send new versions). 

seriously?

> And when Miquel
> suggested a change to the implementation he had done based on the
> discussion we had with Richard, you decided to ignore it and pursue
> in
> the original direction. So, quite frankly, I'm really not convinced
> you
> can conduct such a change.
> 

As Miquel mentioned, we need richard's final comfirmation,
If he agrees with this proposal, I give up my current patch.