Re: LogFS merge

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 18:20:23 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 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.

I agree.  LogFS seems quite impressive in its performance, however I'm
wondering how much redesign and rewrite would be needed in the code to
fix the bad block handling.  Maybe it's not so much and I'm overly
paranoid, but having at least some idea of what it would take might
help.  You could add it to Documentation/filesystems/LogFS.txt as a
TODO.

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