From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [84.204.75.166] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru)
	by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1Flj5i-0002iu-RG
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <447EAD4E.2010709@yandex.ru>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:03:10 +0400
From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" <dedekind@yandex.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
References: <20060530152406.GA15284@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>	<20060530185017.GG26220@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>	<1149062982.32620.67.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605310947550.16927@localhost.localdomain>	<1149086997.32620.101.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605311105170.16927@localhost.localdomain>	<447DC80E.6040604@yandex.ru>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605311314060.16927@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605311314060.16927@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] [MTD] replace MTD_NORFLASH with MTD_GENERIC_TYPE
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> This is the fundamental differences between our views.
> 
> I just can't agree with the "additional layer makes no additional 
> overhead" assertion. Sorry.

Nicolas,

I bet you understand what I meant. I meant, that you may implement this 
"layer" a way it'll have no overhead comparing to the way Joern offers. 
May be layer is not the very appropriate word here. It's not like 
network layers. I just wanted to put my idea in a bit different angle.

I'd uderstood irony, but when you fetch a phrase from the context and 
out of this context it really looks weird, I don't know what is this. 
This is not an argument.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityutskiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.