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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
