From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: Request for review: NandFS Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:52:34 -0600 Message-ID: <498C40A2.8050100@billgatliff.com> References: <200902031327.59536.corentincj@iksaif.net> <498BEBC8.3000302@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Corentin Chary , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, HIBLOT Jean-Jacques , Gregory CLEMENT , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org To: Artem Bityutskiy Return-path: Received: from neptune.billgatliff.com ([72.249.186.68]:48695 "EHLO neptune.billgatliff.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753318AbZBFODF (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:03:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <498BEBC8.3000302@yandex.ru> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > There are so many things to improve in UBI/UBIFS, and there > is a possibility to create a scalable UBI2. You may do a lot > of exciting things in the area, instead. > What's in Corentin's code that UBI/UBIFS could learn from? Or have you reviewed it that closely? > Please, think about joining us instead :-) > Of course, if NandFS is better than UBI/UBIFS, then maybe you should think about joining him instead! :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com