| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6934efce0712041603y65e704c9v6377761ef292b6a5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:03:45 -0800 From: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com> To: "Jörn Engel" <joern@...fs.org> Cc: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: solid state drive access and context switching > > Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see it. We want a block > > interface for these devices, we just need a faster slimmer interface. > > Maybe a new mtdblock interface that doesn't do erase would be the > > place for? > > Doesn't do erase? MTD has to learn almost all tricks from the block > layer, as devices are becoming high-latency high-bandwidth, compared to > what MTD was designed for. In order to get any decent performance, we > need asynchronous operations, request queues and caching. > > The only useful advantage MTD does have over block devices is an > _explicit_ erase operation. Did you mean "doesn't do _implicit_ erase". You're right. That the point I was trying to make, albeit badly, MTD isn't the place for this. The fact that more and more of what the MTD is being used for looks a lot like the block layer is a whole different discussion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists