Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <3951ac21-a0a4-47b5-be94-edb0140c69a5@salutedevices.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:54:29 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] jffs2: make cleanmarker support option
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
CC:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Yu Zhe <yuzhe@nfschina.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        <kernel@sberdevices.ru>
References: <20231019073838.17586-1-mmkurbanov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231019073838.17586-3-mmkurbanov@salutedevices.com>
 <1258129392.18842.1697703134703.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <1258129392.18842.1697703134703.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello Richard,

On 19.10.2023 11:12, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This patch support for disable cleanmarker option. This is useful on
>> some NAND devices which entire OOB area is protected by ECC. Problem
>> fires when JFFS2 driver writes cleanmarker to some page and later it
>> tries to write to this page - write will be done successfully, but after
>> that such page becomes unreadable due to invalid ECC codes. This occurs
>> because the second write necessitates an update to ECC, but it is
>> impossible to do it correctly without block erase.
> Hmm, I miss an explanation why this change is correct and safe.
> You explain why the OOB area can't be used, okay. But you need to
> add more details on why you change is safe in terms of filesystem
> consistency.
 
If you disable the cleanmarker, the found clean block (filled with 0xff)
will be erased again (see fs/jffs2/scan.c#L162).
In my opinion, it is better to perform the block erasure again than to
not work with such a nand flash at all.


> Beside of that, I don't think this should be kernel config option.
> Why not a mount option?

Agreed

-- 
Best Regards,
Martin Kurbanov