On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 06:44 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > It's not a dummy bus, in this approach it would be a the bus that gets > > used by all ubiblk devices, which is a very common concept by itself. > > It's more like the classic understanding of a 'device class' that Greg > > wants to see get replaced by bus_types in the kernel. > > Yes, this sounds OK. Although UBI already has notifiers, so we could > just add 2 more events. Hmm, with notifications the error handling becomes a problem - we want the ioctls for creating/removing the block device to be synchronous, and, should an error occur, we want to return the error code to the user-space. So the existing notifications mechanism does not work well. Not sure about the bus approach - David, could you take a look at it please? If we can handle errors there - then we could indeed re-use the UBI control device. We could even re-use the ioctl data structures for UBI volumes creation/removal - we have plenty of space there reserved for future extensions. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -- 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
