Re: [PATCH 00/22 take 3] UBI: Unsorted Block Images

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 18:03 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So this is probably a stupid question, but what drives the design
> decision to store the metadata in-band instead of out-of-band (and you
> don't have to answer me here; putting it in the overall system
> architecture document is just as good, and probably better.  :-)

Because
a. Many flashes have no out-of-band. We want to support them as well
b. Modern MLC NAND flashes use _whole_ OOB for ECC and this is the
modern trend.

I will update FAQ and add this there later.

> As I mentioned to you in IRC, in the future if there is pending
> changes in response to reviewer comments, it might be a good idea to
> mention that, so that reviewers know not make those comments again, or
> worry that the comments had been ignored.

Teo, I wrote you 2 times that your point was understood and this would
be fixed. You should not think your comments are ignored because they
are not.
 
> Well, having spent some time looking at the FAQ's and all of the
> comments kernel docs embedded in the header files and source files,
> there are sections that I would move to an overall system architecture
> documentation, but there is still a lot that was missing that makes it
> hard to review the patches.  I'm sure a lot of it is my own ignorance,
> but that's probably one of the challenges with the UBI layer; not as
> more people have a basic background in say say scheduling or VM or
> filesystem than there are people who have a basic background in flash
> devices.

Docs and FAQ will be improved, this is a question of time.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)