From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from atlantis.8hz.com ([212.129.237.78]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DiqTX-0006yi-Mh for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:15:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:15:46 +0200 From: Sean Young To: Joern Engel Message-ID: <20050616091546.GA68824@atlantis.8hz.com> References: <20050613123626.GB30868@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20050614192809.GA46302@atlantis.8hz.com> <20050614221844.GB17547@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20050615192754.GA60103@atlantis.8hz.com> <20050615210155.GA32750@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050615210155.GA32750@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Embedded bios FTL List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Joern Engel wrote: > On Wed, 15 June 2005 21:27:54 +0200, Sean Young wrote: > > I'm assuming we're near to a state where it can be committed. > > Yep. No objections from my side. Nice job! Thanks, committed. > > According to General Software documentation their implementation "snoops" > > the fat table in order to see which sectors can be chucked. Hmm... > > That's a smart thing to do if you can be certain the user is running > fat on top. Being certain ain't so easy, though. Indeed so. Besides, it would be more elegant if the file system driver passed this on to the block device, via an ioctl. Would such a thing stand up to scrutiny? As far as I can see, only the ftl block devices would benefit. Sean