From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750719AbXCUIwG (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:52:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750741AbXCUIwF (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:52:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172]:37527 "EHLO mgw-ext13.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750719AbXCUIwE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:52:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22 take 3] UBI: Unsorted Block Images From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org To: Theodore Tso Cc: Josh Boyer , Matt Mackall , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Christoph Hellwig , David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20070320220312.GC29493@thunk.org> References: <20070318191812.GM4892@waste.org> <20070318203149.GC29295@crusty.rchland.ibm.com> <20070319170838.GP4892@waste.org> <1174328188.30079.46.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070319195442.GT4892@waste.org> <1174338393.17249.53.camel@sauron> <20070319213628.GW4892@waste.org> <1174393549.17249.101.camel@sauron> <20070320135231.GA6043@thunk.org> <1174406395.30079.139.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070320220312.GC29493@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:44:35 +0200 Message-Id: <1174466675.17249.182.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-1.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 08:44:35.0741 (UTC) FILETIME=[27532CD0:01C76B95] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 18:03 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > So this is probably a stupid question, but what drives the design > decision to store the metadata in-band instead of out-of-band (and you > don't have to answer me here; putting it in the overall system > architecture document is just as good, and probably better. :-) Because a. Many flashes have no out-of-band. We want to support them as well b. Modern MLC NAND flashes use _whole_ OOB for ECC and this is the modern trend. I will update FAQ and add this there later. > As I mentioned to you in IRC, in the future if there is pending > changes in response to reviewer comments, it might be a good idea to > mention that, so that reviewers know not make those comments again, or > worry that the comments had been ignored. Teo, I wrote you 2 times that your point was understood and this would be fixed. You should not think your comments are ignored because they are not. > Well, having spent some time looking at the FAQ's and all of the > comments kernel docs embedded in the header files and source files, > there are sections that I would move to an overall system architecture > documentation, but there is still a lot that was missing that makes it > hard to review the patches. I'm sure a lot of it is my own ignorance, > but that's probably one of the challenges with the UBI layer; not as > more people have a basic background in say say scheduling or VM or > filesystem than there are people who have a basic background in flash > devices. Docs and FAQ will be improved, this is a question of time. -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)