RE: [ATTEND]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux