UBIFS recovery fails in barebox while Linux suceeds

[Alexander Stein]

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.

> 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 :(

Best regards,
Alexander
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Alexander Stein
SYS TEC electronic GmbH
alexander.stein at systec-electronic.com

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