On Sunday 18 February 2007 04:02:17 Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:15:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 February 2007 03:04, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > No, the MTD interface isn't flawed. gluebi is present to make things
> > > like JFFS2 work on top of UBI volumes with very little adaptations. If
> > > you go changing _every_ MTD user to now use either an MTD device or a
> > > native UBI device, then the code for those users just gets bloated.
> >
> > Right, that was my point. If the MTD API in the kernel is not flawed, why
> > do we need the 'native' UBI interface? Just merge gluebi into UBI and
> > get rid of the extra abstraction.
>
> That suggestion came up several times. gluebi represents a compromise
> between the two groups. IIRC, the issue was that representing UBI volumes
> as MTD devices only makes sense in the dynamic volume case. Static UBI
> volumes require special write/update handling and so there was a need for
> a native interface anyway.
Which brings be back to my original point ;-)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd still like to understand
what is so special with 'static UBI volumes' that they can't be used with
a slightly extended MTD interface.
Arnd <><
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
