From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HM6jS-00078a-QC for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:07:27 +0000 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1RI5000010481 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:05:00 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1RI4xL5529096 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:04:59 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1RI4xPh008841 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:04:59 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] UBI: convert to kthread API From: Josh Boyer To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1172598460.17031.4.camel@sauron> References: <200702271450.41167.alexs@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1172598460.17031.4.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:04:57 -0600 Message-Id: <1172599497.3885.2.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Schmidt , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 19:47 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > 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? Depends I suppose. Is it going to make a large runtime functionality or performance impact if a background thread isn't running? josh