From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HM6U2-0006k1-IW for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:51:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] UBI: convert to kthread API From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Alexander Schmidt In-Reply-To: <200702271450.41167.alexs@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <200702271450.41167.alexs@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:40 +0200 Message-Id: <1172598460.17031.4.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "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 Alexander, On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:50 +0100, Alexander Schmidt wrote: > UBI should use the kthread API, which makes completions and signal > handling go away. how feasible and possible is to get rid of this UBI unit altogether? --=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)