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 17c4mP-0006PX-00 for ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:53:45 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20020806135217.GA17427@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20020806135217.GA17427@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <30768.1028636087@redhat.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se, Dave Ellis , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Disk blocks for long periods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:53:32 +0100 Message-ID: <7034.1028642012@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: joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de said: > Just a wild thought: With three command sets already implemented (0020 > is not in the tree yet), wouldn't it make sense to go through them and > try to collect as much common code, as possible? I really dislike code > multiplication, especially bug multiplication. Yes, it would. We've done some of it already -- the cfi_cmd() bits, etc. Some helpful stuff for handling the state machine and scheduling appropriately would also be good. -- dwmw2