Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 13:45 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: >> 2009/11/17 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx>: > > We need to store this information of NAND flash. Implementing logs on > NAND flash is about handling bad blocks, choosing format of records, and > may be even handling wear-levelling. This is not that simple. > > And then I have match oops to the userspace environment prints, using I > guess timestamps, which is also about complications in userspace. > Indeed my suggestion was to use a persistent ram, not difficult to use. >>> This patch solves the problem gracefully, and I'd rather demand you to point what >>> is the technical problem with the patches. >>> >> Simply because I think that we should avoid to include in the kernel >> things we can do in a simply way at user space level. > > If it is much easier to have in the kernel, then this argument does not > work, IMHO. > >> I think this >> patch is well done but it's one of the patches that are solutions "for >> embedded only", but it's only my opinion. > > Also IMHO, but having embedded-only things is not bad at all. > In the past other patches are not accepted in main line for this, maybe you'll be luckier. Marco -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
