On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:15 -0500, Loke, Chetan wrote: > Exactly. So what I'm saying is, if UBI also does ftl then you could be > duplicating code/efforts. UBI is already upstream. Now whether it > supports everything we want is another thing. > (and that's why I CC'd its author). So pieces that aren't there could be > implemented. But they also talk about erase-counters etc and I don't > know if I saw something similar in your bucket_struct[or foo_struct]. > May be its somewhere else. Hi, UBI is not an FTL, but it implements a lot of things a decent FTL would also need to implement. And implementing FTL on top of UBI would be much simpler than on top of a raw flash (I assume you are discussing a flash?). UBI has it's own strong sides and limitations. Here I described a simple FTL on top of UBI (long time ago): http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-January/020381.html -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
