From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1S5JPY-0007j3-88 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:08:20 +0000 Message-ID: <1331136589.3463.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Richard Weinberger Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:09:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1329250006-22944-2-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> References: <1329250006-22944-1-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> <1329250006-22944-2-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.bird@am.sony.com Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 21:06 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Specify the on-chip checkpoint layout. > The checkpoint consists of two major parts. > A super block (identified via UBI_CP_SB_VOLUME_ID) and > zero or more data blocks (identified via UBI_CP_DATA_VOLUME_ID). > Data blocks are only used if whole checkpoint information does not fit > into the super block. And superblock is also a more or less standard name used by file-system. I easily imagine difficulties and confusion when discussing UBIFS and UBI and mixing UBI and UBIFS supersblocks up. IMHO, anything unique is much better, even if it does not make much sense. E.g., "boss block" or "pomo block" (pomo = boss in Finnish). Would you consider picking a different name as well please? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759331Ab2CGQIU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:08:20 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:8287 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754647Ab2CGQIT (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:08:19 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="115546398" Message-ID: <1331136589.3463.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, tim.bird@am.sony.com Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:09:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1329250006-22944-2-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> References: <1329250006-22944-1-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> <1329250006-22944-2-git-send-email-rw@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-1.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 21:06 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Specify the on-chip checkpoint layout. > The checkpoint consists of two major parts. > A super block (identified via UBI_CP_SB_VOLUME_ID) and > zero or more data blocks (identified via UBI_CP_DATA_VOLUME_ID). > Data blocks are only used if whole checkpoint information does not fit > into the super block. And superblock is also a more or less standard name used by file-system. I easily imagine difficulties and confusion when discussing UBIFS and UBI and mixing UBI and UBIFS supersblocks up. IMHO, anything unique is much better, even if it does not make much sense. E.g., "boss block" or "pomo block" (pomo = boss in Finnish). Would you consider picking a different name as well please? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy