Hi!
On 23.05.2014 16:12, John Crispin wrote:
ok, i will rework the series and merge the first 2 patches in the next
days.
i noticed the series passes the cmdline of sysupgrade which is a bit
ugly so i will change that to using imagename + preserve_settings or
similar
That sounds good:-) Can'
Hi!
On 23.05.2014 15:08, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
is this neccessary ? should a forced detach not be enough ? that is
why we added the forced detach ioctl.
could you try to use "ubi detach rootfs" instead of unmount ?
Damn, I did not notice this. I have to use a different kernel source..
Thank
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/2014 04:12 PM, John Crispin wrote:
> ok, i will rework the series and merge the first 2 patches in the next
> days.
>
> i noticed the series passes the cmdline of sysupgrade which is a bit ugly
> so i will change that to using imagename + p
On 23/05/2014 16:47, André Valentin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> currently I cannot comment this, I will do it in the late evening.
> But please notice that this was a request for comments. It was not
> intended to be merged, because there are still some minor and ugly
> things in it. I just wanted to know
Hi!
currently I cannot comment this, I will do it in the late evening. But please
notice that this was a request for comments. It was not intended to be merged,
because there are still some minor and ugly things in it.
I just wanted to know what you think about this before I invest more time in
On 23/05/2014 15:13, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Replacing pid 1 is the safest, cleanest and most generic solution
> as it will support any kind of underlying storage system so you can
> e.g. umount an ext4 root or perform LVM ops in case the system runs
> from a volume group etc.
>
> ~ Jow
ok, i
Hey.
> is this neccessary ? should a forced detach not be enough ? that is
> why we added the forced detach ioctl.
The forced detaching might solve the issue for the ubi case but not in a
general way.
Replacing pid 1 is the safest, cleanest and most generic solution as it
will support any kind of
Hi,
is this neccessary ? should a forced detach not be enough ? that is
why we added the forced detach ioctl.
could you try to use "ubi detach rootfs" instead of unmount ?
John
On 23/05/2014 14:40, Daniel wrote:
> Hi André,
>
> I'm also working a lot on UBI(fs) support lately. First
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi André,
I'm also working a lot on UBI(fs) support lately. First of all, a patch like
this one is needed also for squashfs on ubiblock or any platform with a root
device which actually got some sort of locking...
I used a hack jow made at some point
Hi!
I'm playing with different hardware, mainly with NAND storage. I'm happy with
ubi and ubifs, because it makes life easier and is a nice tool like lvm.
But I noticed that I was unable to upgrade an ubifs volume. I used the
sysupgrade framework, it unmounted root and killed several process. roo
10 matches
Mail list logo
