From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from risingsoftware01.propagation.net ([66.221.33.65]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Jy02S-0008Ju-Ui for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 07:44:09 +0000 Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:44:03 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: ext2 for read-only file system on UBI Message-ID: <20080519074403.GA17911@cloud.net.au> References: <20080519062149.GA16462@cloud.net.au> <1211179073.27243.22.camel@sauron> <20080519065623.GA17246@cloud.net.au> <1211180904.27243.27.camel@sauron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1211180904.27243.27.camel@sauron> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:08:24AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 16:56 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > No, should be fine. Well, you'll still have WL across whole NAND chip, > > > yes. You'll still have bit-flip handling. > > > > So, is there a benefit to Nancy's proposed ubi block layer as opposed to > > gluebi + mtdblock? > > ( http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2008-May/021609.html ) > > Yes, her layer is assumed to be R/W block device. > > You could want to glance here as well: > > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/general.html#L_ext2_mtd > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubi.html#L_ext2_over_ubi Thanks for the links. So, read-write with mtdblock is dangerous (regardless of UBI) because it must erase and rewrite a whole block, right? Proposed ubiblk (linked from above) would use UBI ops to make the update operation safe. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB