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 1KIzFE-0000qa-HO for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:08:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [ubi][wl] the W/R performance of my wear-leveling unit 2 From: Artem Bityutskiy To: xiaochuan-xu In-Reply-To: <1215763483.2784.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1215763483.2784.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:06:10 +0300 Message-Id: <1216184770.29469.44.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 Fri, 2008-07-11 at 16:04 +0800, xiaochuan-xu wrote: > one other thing forgeted, > the threshold value is 4096 for current UBI, and 100 for mine Could you please first send a patch which only removes the protection trees. It should not contain any other unnecessary change, just protection tree removal. Everything should work fine without the protection tree, because it is just an optimization. The performance should drop I guess. After you have succeeded providing a small and clean prot. tree removal patch, we may continue with further WL re-working. Please, test your patch as well. Run the UBI tests which you may find in mtd-utils.git/tests/ubi-tests/. Thanks.=20 --=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)