From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gw2.atmark-techno.com (gw2.atmark-techno.com [35.74.137.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F157327732 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2026 00:57:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=35.74.137.57 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787187469; cv=none; b=Kir7yLhO3nLgwloWFEXJxYwZLglciRGfPA32+aqGJYvqpWg6TObBry6SDWQudVXY5JjlXlBWCQ4i6VkkkrooPznI3cj8v3ZACjs/kKCuNRhgVuZrmoWGyef9OhDw3s3CB/Vn/OYqgZSQitkZwb4kpFKE6CYKZqBF47Gg+ZejiEg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787187469; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f1gTDTn04xgBULfPAqs1+jut3p06CVvDRSRfJVLfUC4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ICene/gzZZQkN/Wo1MPvg+fI81XtQcOCiCWc04CCqxWBIQhyOYeSicqExLHp55aO6klPz2tgf381xEHZUt2Vn5sqrLLmvm+APP7JsscR70W4dt19ECWWZP/rabr+UYgiGTTvcdiNXSaUVGSYzp62Ha7YxLwopVVdzzzTQFiUyas= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=atmark-techno.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=atmark-techno.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=atmark-techno.com header.i=@atmark-techno.com header.b=T4G509fk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=35.74.137.57 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=atmark-techno.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=atmark-techno.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=atmark-techno.com header.i=@atmark-techno.com header.b="T4G509fk" Authentication-Results: gw2.atmark-techno.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=atmark-techno.com header.i=@atmark-techno.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=T4G509fk; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com (mail-pl1-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by gw2.atmark-techno.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA0B111 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:57:40 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-pl1-f200.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2ce7dff6253so4282115ad.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 17:57:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=atmark-techno.com; s=google; t=1787187460; x=1787792260; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=xZ6vy4VTfKURcQxXwGAZYevGuvbsABfheCK7MjM4YOw=; b=T4G509fkE3Ig6taijHKLmoxfWe+5DNhGSe1WWZJQGwebkrnkUB4Zlh60Vecj4CxAj5 HwCao9INLGDWAxaoz2DPA8wtLkAmcOK7XfBZbxK+5Yc7f40hsp7Vr65xzeqXAH3lR9Rn L6+dPiwIvkkOLC8WFe0hg86HF6/csaGPa68qsSRWlIxxOPyITTnhrarGzmzxwRNidbpy o0jMVS/+G7SPktu8o/PksIRnC+rLH64LipbJGj0PCjvI0HH+37XhEZmYhcEb6PEAuQJS fIziLwmua25RkPml7CIT9/OpyHAiPBgJcMnpyLY/ERxyqprrGn/GrD1jV6xviieDabw3 DC6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1787187460; x=1787792260; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=xZ6vy4VTfKURcQxXwGAZYevGuvbsABfheCK7MjM4YOw=; b=m+PIiAfEqlih7hF+lEg4f5znyKmr5lUrw3FjR6nlGBk3+hD8I3jsY0sAbFh0x1BS8L KLA2j7exunLwkQTm0gwIz2vt0XiCZ0BoS6GCEt2sNxpp43u3J2tw/vcuK2JSee/Qx2iV 3TM61d5DwngF/qwDMAfjCE7MgL6DYoZouayrzgItQ6hhp4fFeRFG+is0YI+en8YIcNQl Whb/uKj6jZFXBDQtxDOFBlHXd4vjSCwnriVwMzi9q2o5TOAjZQTqig524aXQpXNr9qfB +8Hib/XVbRmtgA/3fRn6pK6CVUPKRjn1s8dqm/dWMRBeYn/FfqnJ+OBym8E3u2wXzv7N 3+NQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RrB+ZnvqpS4xj0M8h/jyYBABctn4t3fbzmWUmQa4JaXzGhPhRas2SrI+NeKkUJbtrq+agqLGXnueJ1DIos=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++l4Yr7bwuqNrbDfWzOY36s4xMkowd+pDoxAmTRi6LoXN04Qdqm3 V+vL36J2mkckAx5Bn/sB8giGFlQ25l+4K0UW3EaMiQX4phJB3oVb9C8q2VTdATkRcm1iphaeZek x+Ei/DbeFWVqBtouxutXYPibk45rd6JUW1L1P1ZED9gd03Tx0mY0MJyflNtn72E+sDQ8= X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD12lb2UvuhxHQxtGuU6qllJkSfe1uas+isRgqla1QTlXEBIlzdwRzErj7uiTpzJ Fj1CVGsG9ipbK7VV5ggtwUXs0xfmjdk11cvVSQPZ18U1iar3jUUaYQ34f2fQ9xIz2VljPk3t+FK c4xvyaxYD20p/WPqMC0ZCIievntUC1+r3nKx80o4C9u+iTjF7ccAcTq1lX98bsOptOXRHPed4zg x2Z/S29vD65P2fLCY+9Bs0JltKHf1a20KGwJ8lEVHPC26ILibn+wRIX6SfPNc/Sb+di/lTsLf0Y OE0f2jbKbgKsZin/O1ZdyJ+JJEn3fhTultVXMnrE6o2o1ted6sWdpCLcspMr3WUf7m8C29gzmBe dk09qQcevsuAz0eHZE6fXNgrHU/e8f04ibF6ahMquA99J0/rw X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c944:b0:2d2:72b6:556b with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2d61a1a54f5mr33599555ad.13.1787187459835; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 17:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c944:b0:2d2:72b6:556b with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2d61a1a54f5mr33599065ad.13.1787187459368; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 17:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (sodcd-04p2-40.ppp11.odn.ad.jp. [203.139.65.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2d62d588035sm499445ad.23.2026.08.19.17.57.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 Aug 2026 17:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:57:27 +0900 From: Dominique Martinet To: Richard Weinberger Cc: stable , chengzhihao1 , Miquel Raynal , linux-mtd , linux-kernel , Cheng Ming Lin , Liyuan Pang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Backport fixes for UBI Message-ID: References: <20260818-ubi-backports-v1-0-324d6816d2ae@atmark-techno.com> <1200997805.161072.1787136508436.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200997805.161072.1787136508436.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> Richard Weinberger wrote on Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 12:48:28PM +0200: > While porting these back is not wrong, I have a hard time to see how the > current stables rules apply here. Thank you for looking into this! I'm honestly fuzzy on stable backport "rules", but in practice I see all sort of things get in (admitely sometimes new features/refactor just because it makes an actual fix easier to backport, but also quite a few leaks on failures like the second patch and other general improvements), so after noticing someone else submitted 6.12 contiguous read improvements recently[1] so I assumed such backports would be welcome... But ultimately I think it's up to you, so happy to see the patches dropped if you prefer. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260811161342.533280-1-frieder@fris.de > "mtd: ubi: skip programming unused bits in ubi headers" does not fix anything. > It's a pure optimization for future flashes, UBI worked since ever without this > change. I might have misunderstood something about this patch, but while UBI works fine I believe this would increase the longevity of more than just "future flashes" I've burned out 2 times 1MB (4 erase blocks) from the NAND I have on hand (winbond W25N04LW) using either random data + erase (nandtest) or a patched version writing zeroes + erase, and writing many zeroes failed the erase blocks about 40-50% faster (85 thousands cycles vs 132 thousands until the first erase failure, 121/175 until erase stopped working with many retries) This obviously is a tiny sample size and not concrete proof, and this patch won't have such a big impact because the area is small, but I believe this patch will still improve the endurance a tiny bit for at least our model, which was the motivation for me to pick this up. Of course, there's also a chance that something breaks from it so I can perfectly understand if you prefer not to backport it; you're in a much better place than me to draw the line. Thanks, -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus