From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16bmVc-0005w0-00 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:50:56 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Robert Kaiser Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, J?rn Engel Subject: Re: MTD concat layer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:02:09 +0000 Message-ID: <30752.1013796129@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: 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