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 1LAPFw-0007F8-PV for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:37:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI WL-Subsys: Improvement in prot tree From: Artem Bityutskiy To: xiaochuan-xu In-Reply-To: <1228914665.3655.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1228823163.2753.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228827803.13686.189.camel@sauron> <1228884752.3225.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228898668.13686.223.camel@sauron> <1228914665.3655.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:35:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1228916119.13686.284.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 21:11 +0800, xiaochuan-xu wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > 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.=20 I guess you would have to write a very special test to see any difference. --=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)