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 1JxzVF-0005Vp-JB for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 07:09:50 +0000 Subject: Re: ext2 for read-only file system on UBI From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Hamish Moffatt In-Reply-To: <20080519065623.GA17246@cloud.net.au> References: <20080519062149.GA16462@cloud.net.au> <1211179073.27243.22.camel@sauron> <20080519065623.GA17246@cloud.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:08:24 +0300 Message-Id: <1211180904.27243.27.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 Mon, 2008-05-19 at 16:56 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > No, should be fine. Well, you'll still have WL across whole NAND chip, > > yes. You'll still have bit-flip handling. >=20 > So, is there a benefit to Nancy's proposed ubi block layer as opposed to > gluebi + mtdblock? > ( http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-May/021609.html ) Yes, her layer is assumed to be R/W block device. You could want to glance here as well: http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/general.html#L_ext2_mtd http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubi.html#L_ext2_over_ubi --=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)