lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] MTD: UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Richard Weinberger wrote:

> Am 07.03.2012 17:09, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 21:06 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > Specify the on-chip checkpoint layout.
> > > The checkpoint consists of two major parts.
> > > A super block (identified via UBI_CP_SB_VOLUME_ID) and
> > > zero or more data blocks (identified via UBI_CP_DATA_VOLUME_ID).
> > > Data blocks are only used if whole checkpoint information does not fit
> > > into the super block.
> >
> > And superblock is also a more or less standard name used by file-system.
> > I easily imagine difficulties and confusion when discussing UBIFS and
> > UBI and mixing UBI and UBIFS supersblocks up. IMHO, anything unique is
> > much better, even if it does not make much sense. E.g., "boss block" or
> > "pomo block" (pomo = boss in Finnish).
> >
> > Would you consider picking a different name as well please?
> >
>
> Will do.

What about FASTMAP ?

That's what the whole story is about. Building the logical/physical
mappings (fast). Then call the "super block" FASTMAP_REF and the data
stuff FASTMAP_DATA.

That's the sanest I could come up with aside of smuggling in my
favourite buzzword ROADMAP :)

Of course we could stay with latin and name it: UBIUBI. ubiubi is latin
for: where the heck is it, but I guess that's stretching it a bit :)

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-07 23:11    [W:0.079 / U:1.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site