Bean, Am 01.02.2016 um 08:17 schrieb Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo): >> If you can explain in detail why UBIFS' assumptions are wrong and how such >> corruptions can happen on SLC we can talk. >> But I think then we'd have to redo a lot of UBI and UBIFS code. > > I will hack my patch again, and double check these strict checks. > But I still insist on Master node should always be recovered by another good > master, > even if two corrupted pages exist in one block. This is more reasonable and > reliable. > Of course, so far, we did not meet this scenario on SLC NAND. > Current UBIFS master node recovery mechanism totally can handle with > Power loss no matter MLC or SLC, why not let UBIFS more reliable? Two master > node blocks > Just for SLC NAND?
Of course, I'm all for improvements. But if you talk about "more reliable" you have to define first what the issue is. As I said, we have this strict checks for reasons and they did a very good service so far. I've seen a lot UBIFS corruptions where the master node was damaged but not a single time it was UBIFS' fault. It was always a subtle MTD driver issue. Thanks, //richard