From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757441AbYEDQVv@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757441AbYEDQVv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 4 May 2008 12:21:51 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753439AbYEDQVo
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 4 May 2008 12:21:44 -0400
Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:51120 "EHLO www.tglx.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752035AbYEDQVn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 4 May 2008 12:21:43 -0400
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:20:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= <joern@logfs.org>
cc: matthieu castet <castet.matthieu@free.fr>,
       Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: LogFS merge
In-Reply-To: <20080503120005.GA32608@logfs.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805041809370.3318@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <481C3087.8020501@free.fr> <20080503120005.GA32608@logfs.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-276966678-1209918024=:3318"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-276966678-1209918024=:3318
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 1.
> Ubifs takes the easy approach and uses ubi for wear leveling, bad block
> handling, ets.  Saves a ton of work, gives quick results and is limited
> by ubi scan time, which is O(n).

Which is easy enough to fix.

> Logfs ignores ubi and does wear leveling, bad block handling, etc.
> itself.  Bad block handling in particular is not too robust yet.  If you
> expect blocks to rot away after mkfs time, logfs is a bad choice.

It's a matter of fact that especially on NAND flash blocks become bad
over time, i.e. after mkfs. So that's a pretty crucial feature which
needs to be complete and robust before it's declared to be usable on
such devices.

Thanks,
	tglx

--8323328-276966678-1209918024=:3318--