From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755275AbYFDBOX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:14:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751950AbYFDBON (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:14:13 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.239]:64194 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751322AbYFDBON (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:14:13 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Zgjow4ZrH3ubU+uQs0hjcKsH3FFlgeFT+/Y7jrFxDBywBfmOZggxDEtWMVqxqO8fjHPyHsd0lEXnybMWu73Q1MbpsEEevfQDAKLTV2Mxwu2fjOeaQGXAWl1U9AF6Ku2p9AdFyVk7mxnWAVvFa/lsHQszlzHGbQ2jwfafyq22SRQ= Message-ID: <6934efce0806031814s6c416261pa9285aee9ae547a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:14:12 -0700 From: "Jared Hulbert" To: david@lang.hm Subject: Re: Future Linux on Bistable Storage Cc: "Rick van Rein" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080602125904.GA15129@phantom.vanrein.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > the alternate technologies that I have heard about are either _far_ less > dense then DRAM (similar to static ram) or require erasing in blocks > (similar to flash). I will agree with this. > niether one is appropriate for a large, flat addressed > memory architecture as you list below. I don't agree with this one. Erase blocks don't automatically disqualify a memory as a fit into a flat addressed arch. You need to play games at the memory management layer to make it work, but it's not impossible.