Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block
From: Boris Brezillon
Date: Tue Jun 02 2020 - 07:53:46 EST
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:46 +0200
Bean Huo <huobean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, you've lost the right to have your
word in such design choices a long time ago. You can't deliberately lie
to us for several weeks/months and expect us to trust you (your
judgment) after that.
Back to the actual proposal, it's something that came from a discussion
we had with Miquel and Richard. It's certainly not perfect, but neither
is the option of hardcoding a quirk for JFFS2/UBI/UBIFS in the Micron
BTW, I think you completely occluded Miquel's suggestion to have a
generic implementation at the MTD level for users who don't care about
the pattern that's written to those 'soon-to-be-erased' blocks. See,
that's one of the things I'm complaining about. You seem to ignore
(don't know if it's deliberate or not) some of the suggestions we do.
> > 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.
I don't understand what you mean here, sorry.
> > 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).
> > 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.
Actually, you need more than Richard's blessing. Miquel has to agree on
the NAND changes, and even if I can't block the solution, I think I can
at least give my opinion: anything that involves FS/wear-leveling
specific code at the NAND level should be avoided. Given the discussion
we had regarding JFFS2 and the cleanmarkers, I don't think we can come
up with a solution that's safe for every users, hence the proposal to
empower users with this responsibility.