From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ip68-6-32-25.sb.sd.cox.net ([68.6.32.25] helo=speedy.datawave.net) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16c66T-00076Y-00 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:46:17 +0000 From: "Brian J. Fox" To: rob@sysgo.de CC: dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de In-reply-to: (message from Robert Kaiser on Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:03:27 +0100 (MET)) Subject: Re: MTD concat layer Message-Id: Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:56:49 -0800 Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: From: Robert Kaiser Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:03:27 +0100 (MET) On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, David Woodhouse wrote: > > rob@sysgo.de said: > > OK, just to be clear about this: If my erase function is asked to > > erase -say- 1.5 blocks, what should it do: > > -EINVAL. OK, but is the function allowed to erase blocks up to the point where it hits the partial block request ? That would make it simpler, especially in the presence of variable block sizes. I was lurking, but I guess I have to post an opinion on this. *No*, you should *not* erase some blocks and return an error. Brian == The Difference Between Cultures: == Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit Liberte', E'galite', Fraternite' Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll