[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 41/44 take 2] [UBI] gluebi unit header
On Sunday 18 February 2007 04:02:17 Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:15:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 February 2007 03:04, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > No, the MTD interface isn't flawed.  gluebi is present to make things
> > > like JFFS2 work on top of UBI volumes with very little adaptations.  If
> > > you go changing _every_ MTD user to now use either an MTD device or a
> > > native UBI device, then the code for those users just gets bloated.
> >
> > Right, that was my point. If the MTD API in the kernel is not flawed, why
> > do we need the 'native' UBI interface? Just merge gluebi into UBI and
> > get rid of the extra abstraction.
> That suggestion came up several times.  gluebi represents a compromise
> between the two groups.  IIRC, the issue was that representing UBI volumes
> as MTD devices only makes sense in the dynamic volume case.  Static UBI
> volumes require special write/update handling and so there was a need for
> a native interface anyway.

Which brings be back to my original point ;-)

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd still like to understand
what is so special with 'static UBI volumes' that they can't be used with
a slightly extended MTD interface.

Arnd <><
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-18 23:41    [W:0.184 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site