From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134] helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JHxm2-00057u-CN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:49:26 +0000 Subject: Re: Is there really need to build Block Device Emulation over UBI? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Nancy In-Reply-To: References: <1201159103.6934.36.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:45:26 +0200 Message-Id: <1201164326.6934.39.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: , On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 16:24 +0800, Nancy wrote: > > The problem with mtdblock is that when it needs to change an eraseblock= , > > it reads it, erases, then writes new data to it, which would cause data > > loss in case of an unclean reboot. >=20 > If I can delay the erase operation, then it perfect works? when > change a eraseblock, reads it(from old mapped PEB) , then writes new > data to it(new mapped PEB), finally erase the old mapped PEB. >=20 > How about that? Yes, this is OK, but mtdblock does not do this. Here I wrote about how to create a simple FTL layer over UBI: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-January/020381.html --=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)