From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([88.190.12.23]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Tb736-0002B9-6E for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:56:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:56:36 +0100 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Ricard Wanderlof Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] ubi: Add ubiblock driver Message-ID: <20121121105636.4c8687e0@skate> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ezequiel Garcia , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Ricard Wanderlof, On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:28:43 +0100, Ricard Wanderlof wrote: > I don't want to diminish your work in any way, but what is the point of > the ubiblock feature? Mtd block devices are really only used in order to > give the mount/umount commands a block device, and for ubifs the device is > specified in another way. So I suspect the intended usage for ubiblock is > something else. The idea, when David Wagner implemented this, was to be able to use read-only block filesystems such as squashfs on top of a UBI volume. squashfs provides an excellent compression ratio, which makes it interesting. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com