public inbox for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>
To: xiaochuan-xu <xiaochuan-xu@cqu.edu.cn>
Cc: linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI WL-Subsys: Improvement in prot tree
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:35:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1228916119.13686.284.camel@sauron> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228914665.3655.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 21:11 +0800, xiaochuan-xu wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > 
> > I think it does not matter much and we may use the same constant for
> > short term and unknown eraseblocks. I do not see much difference
> > between
> > 8 or 16. Does it really matter? We just want to prevent this
> > eraseblock
> > from being moved for some reasonable "time". And everything depends on
> > work-load of course. So I think just using the same constant for all
> > PEB
> 
> My opposite experiment indicates that such unified-protection-time
> method seems to be not better than the different-protection-time one in
> run time. the system run time fluctuates. 

I guess you would have to write a very special test to see any difference.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-12-10 13:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1228823163.2753.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-09 11:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] UBI WL-Subsys: Improvement in prot tree xiaochuan-xu
2008-12-09 13:03 ` Artem Bityutskiy
     [not found]   ` <1228884752.3225.80.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-10  4:52     ` xiaochuan-xu
2008-12-10  8:44     ` Artem Bityutskiy
     [not found]       ` <1228914665.3655.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-10 13:11         ` xiaochuan-xu
2008-12-10 13:35         ` Artem Bityutskiy [this message]
     [not found]       ` <1228913251.3655.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
     [not found]         ` <1228931859.13686.350.camel@sauron>
     [not found]           ` <1228981865.2702.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
     [not found]             ` <1229022841.13686.384.camel@sauron>
     [not found]               ` <1229332169.5306.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
     [not found]                 ` <1229332781.13686.447.camel@sauron>
     [not found]                   ` <1229343610.2687.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
     [not found]                     ` <1229343746.4911.2.camel@sauron>
     [not found]                       ` <1229347894.2687.56.camel@localhost.localdomain>
     [not found]                         ` <1229356809.4911.57.camel@sauron>
     [not found]                           ` <1229394788.2691.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-16  2:33                             ` xiaochuan-xu
     [not found]                           ` <1229395691.2691.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-16  2:48                             ` xiaochuan-xu
2008-12-16  6:36                             ` Artem Bityutskiy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1228916119.13686.284.camel@sauron \
    --to=dedekind@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=xiaochuan-xu@cqu.edu.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox