Re: [PATCH 00/22 take 3] UBI: Unsorted Block Images

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 14:54 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> False starts that get mainlined delay or prevent things getting done
> right. The question is and remains "is UBI the right way to do
> things?" Not "is UBI the easiest way to do things?" or "is UBI
> something people have already adopted?"
> 
> If the right way is instead to extend the block layer and device
> mapper to encompass the quirks of NAND in a sensible fashion, then UBI
> should not go in.

This is where we disagree obviously.  However, getting UBI into mainline
won't delay or prevent your proposal from getting done.  That's like
saying having ext3 in mainline prevents other filesystems from getting
created.  There is nothing wrong with having different subsystems that
overlap in a few areas.

What you're proposing seems like it would take at least several weeks to
even get close to what is needed in terms of reliability and the
required wear-leveling if it is indeed possible to implement.  And it
would likely duplicate some of the wear-leveling and bad block handling
code that is present in UBI anyway.  In the meantime, the need for UBI
exists today and there is a working, tested implementation available.

josh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/