State of UBI

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Sun Sep 10 08:32:57 EDT 2006

On 9/10/06, dedekind <dedekind at> wrote:
> Hello Josh,
> >Where are we with UBI?  It seems Artem has been steadily committing
> >fixes to the ubi git tree.
> Yes, I'm using it in another project so I stedily add more tiny
> features, changes and fixes. Also, one may notice that I maintain
> UBI FAQ which has considerably grown.

I've noticed that as well.  I think it's great and I appreciate the
effort you've put in so far.

> >I think a good start would be to list what's missing.  I know that it
> >needs a patch to allow double page writes on NAND.  There's also the
> >missing JFFS2 integration, or rather two competing versions of it.  Is
> >there anything else?  Something documented in a TODO list would be
> >good.
> Well, what you've listed is not what UBI itself needs:
> 1. "double page writes on NAND" - it needs MTD changes and zero UBI changes.

I'll politely disagree here.  UBI _does_ need this on NAND to be
really usable.  Otherwise you eat 2 pages per block for UBI metadata,
and that is quite a bit of overhead for a handful of bytes in the

> 2. Better UBI utilities as I find the current ones not ideal.

What do you find lacking or not ideal?  I'm just curious.

> >Then there's a matter of when should it be merged.  As it stands right
> >now, UBI is in limbo and I'd hate to see something with good potential
> >just sit around rotting.  Having a merge goal would perhaps provide
> >some motivation.  It could be a date or a kernel version, but it
> >should be realistic.
> Would be nice to just add it to mtd-2.6.git, IMO. This would be a good
> and simple step further.

Yes, maybe.  But I don't want to put the mtd-2.6.git tree in a state
where one has to cherry pick non-UBI fixes from it to send upstream.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list