Re: MTD concat layer

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

rob@sysgo.de said:
>  OK, will look into this. I stole that part from Aleksander
> Sanochkin's patch. I did test it, BTW (with erase/eraseall), and it
> worked. Apparently, these tools erase the device block by block. Is it
> legal/supported at all to make erase calls covering multiple blocks or
> partial blocks ? 

Partial blocks is impossible, so not supported. Multiple blocks is 
permitted.

>  Hmm, I agreed with you about this before I actually attempted coding
> it this way, but the code turned out to be a mess. IMHO, it is _much_
> cleaner as a seperate layer. What would be the advantage of merging it
> into the partition code ?

Fewer wrapper layers to go through. Look at the part_read() call I 
implemented - is that really so bad for the case where people don't have 
multiple 'sections' in each partition?

> - significant effort, specifically since the current partitioning
>   code is scheduled for replacement by Jörn's code, so I'd have to
>   do it twice. 

Jörn's code needs to provide this functionality to be merged - making sure 
there's no regression is part of the work necessary for merging the new 
stuff, and wouldn't necessarily fall to you.

--
dwmw2