From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.185]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LN1eB-0001I8-7E for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:03:00 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a21so323107tia.2 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:02:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: about the _dtype_ parameter From: xiaochuanxv To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1231839695.5973.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1231168447.6608.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <70B175DB52584932819754004995AB59@PC200810230421> <1231839695.5973.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:02:28 +0800 Message-Id: <1231952548.3615.66.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sorry, a mistake in writing: (Suppose wr-ratio represent the ratio of erasures due to wear-leveling to erasure total physical erase-block erasures. ) I found that when most of the @dtype is equal to UBI_SHORTTERM, the wr-ratio is approximately equal to 0.1%, whereas is greater than 0.4% when @dtype is always UBI_UNKNOWN. It seem that the data type call-back policy does NOT make any sense in the current implementation. -- Best regards, Xiaochuan Xu (许小川)