linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:46 +0200
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc:     miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, vigneshr@...com, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
        derosier@...il.com, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Micron SLC NAND filling block

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@...il.com> 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.
> 
> 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.


> 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). 

seriously?

> 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.