From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: What is ANAND header? From: David Woodhouse To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1169743487.9477.4.camel@sauron> References: <20070124054731.GA31267@pooky.senux.com> <20070125064937.GA5712@pooky.senux.com> <1169716358.3609.12.camel@sauron> <1169739059.3593.84.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <1169740653.3721.10.camel@sauron> <1169741859.3593.102.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <1169743487.9477.4.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:55:38 +0800 Message-Id: <1169744138.3593.114.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Seongsu Lee List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Agree, an FS is a much more interesting problem. Although a good FTL is > is something which would be nice to have. Not really. If we had a well-maintained FTL then people would only use it. :) NFTL/INFTL/SAFTL are actually quite good designs as FTLs go; it's just that we have the potential patent issues with them and nobody really cares enough about them to make sure _our_ implementation is as good as it should be, or even that we tie in block-deletion events from the file system. -- dwmw2