Il 04/08/2015 09:21, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
Andrea,
Am 04.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Andrea Scian:
I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.
We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required for old
SLC ;-)
I think this needs more discussion.
Boris, Brian, will you be at Embedded Linux Conference Europe in Dublin?
Maybe we can discuss these issues (data retention, ff-checks, etc...) in person
and
> figure out where to address them.
I really want to avoid ad-hoc solutions. :)
Maybe I'll be at ELCE this year too
I'll be glad to meet all of you in person and participate to this
discussion. :)
It will be nice if also some silicon vendor would like to participate. I
know that someone from micron is actively following us on this ML, but I
don't really know if there's someone here in Europe. :)
Thanks.
In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the overhead
>> or does it enable too much checks?
You mean the other checks bedside of self_check_write()? You can comment them
out
> for your tests.
Thanks,
//richard
Kind Regards,
--
Andrea SCIAN
DAVE Embedded Systems
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
