From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JHyaW-0002DL-JK for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:41:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Is there really need to build Block Device Emulation over UBI? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Nancy In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:37:39 +0200 Message-Id: <1201167459.6934.42.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 11:13 +0800, Nancy wrote: > Hi, > Is there really need to build Block Device Emulation over UBI? Why > can't use the mtd_blkdev.c and mtdblock.c directly? > Thanks to gluebi, make UBI and MTD become one. More interesting > thing is, volume can be treat like a mtd partition. mtdblock.c do not > have wear-leveling and bad block management mechanism but UBI has. > gluebi make all those functions mix together right? > I have tried, and it work. Frankly, I am very busy now and have no time to review so much code. Please, communicate via the mailing list instead. And please, send patches instead of whole files. --=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)