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) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
