On Tue, 21 February 2006 09:26:13 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> It's about some piece of software relying on a non guaranteed hardware
> feature.
> 
> I'm looking into the variety of hardware which evolves around NAND flash
> and I carefully look in which direction this is going.
> 
> I see that the near future will require more complexity in the nand code
> and I'm looking for a sane solution for that. I'm not saying that its
> wrong, when something uses a nice hardware feature, but my point still
> stands that it is wrong to rely on a feature which is nowhere
> guaranteed. 

Ack.  One of the better features of hard disks is that they have a
standard interface.  I can take an ext3 image from a 5 year old disk
from one vendor and write it to a brand new disk from a different
vendor and things just work.  No conversion tool is needed.

For flash, moving images between arbitrary chips is just a pipe dream.
But things will get pushed into that direction.  So for a filesystem
to work on many chips, it should be prepared to work with different
page- and block-sizes and not rely on OOB at all.

Jörn

-- 
You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in
there, chill them niggers out and wait for the Wolf, who should be
coming directly.
-- Marsellus Wallace