From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgw-ext11.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1GlQ3J-0005pK-Sa for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:16:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MTD] BLOCK_RO: Readonly Block Device Layer Over MTD From: Artem Bityutskiy To: kbaidarov In-Reply-To: <20061117184055.569da7ad@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061117184055.569da7ad@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:15:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1163855713.5597.70.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Konstantin, On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:40 +0300, kbaidarov wrote: > Description: > The following patch adds readonly block device layer over mtd > that allows to use any filesystem on this device in RO mode and > thus gain faster mount times and better throughput rates. This is very ambition claim. In comparison with what? > How it works: > Blocks translation routine was added to read sector function. Assuming > that bad block won't appear during MTD reading and BBT is correct, bad > block is skipped and requested block is lazily mapped to good one. > Block driver based on the mtd readonly device driver mtdblock_ro.c and > translation routine was taken from the patch of Pantelis Antoniou > (which can be found at > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-May/009672.html). >=20 So basically this is bad eraseblock-aware mtdblock_ro? But why you created a new driver and with so weird name :-) ? Why didn't you just changed mtdblock_ro? IOW, why you didn't adapt Pantelis' patch instead and re-send it? (I have no idea why this patch isn't im MTD still, --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)