From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [119.145.14.65] (helo=szxga02-in.huawei.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XAp8v-00081H-AY for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <53D2EB45.9060302@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:41:57 +0800 From: hujianyang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Ehrenberg Subject: Re: Using UBIFS as an FTL References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com, "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2014/7/26 2:21, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: > - loopback-mounting a file on ubifs--From skimming the code, it looks > to me like ubifs uses some nice datastructures to handle writes within > a file without doing read-modify-writes all the time as ubiblock > forces. ubifs authors/maintainers, do you see any downside to using > ubifs this way? This way seems most easily to realize. Synchronize the loop file and maybe you will never worry about power cut. How about using UBI-layer and writing a new block driver to handle bio? This driver should care about which leb on the flash has data and other thing else(I don't have a clear idea now). The 'leb_change' ops in UBI-layer maybe helpful for in-place update and atomic write. But This way is harder than using a loop file.