[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315282208.19067.24.camel@sauron>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:10:03 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: david.wagner@...e-electrons.com,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] UBI: new module ubiblk: block layer on top of UBI
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 06:44 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > It's not a dummy bus, in this approach it would be a the bus that gets
> > used by all ubiblk devices, which is a very common concept by itself.
> > It's more like the classic understanding of a 'device class' that Greg
> > wants to see get replaced by bus_types in the kernel.
>
> Yes, this sounds OK. Although UBI already has notifiers, so we could
> just add 2 more events.
Hmm, with notifications the error handling becomes a problem - we want
the ioctls for creating/removing the block device to be synchronous,
and, should an error occur, we want to return the error code to the
user-space. So the existing notifications mechanism does not work well.
Not sure about the bus approach - David, could you take a look at it
please? If we can handle errors there - then we could indeed re-use the
UBI control device. We could even re-use the ioctl data structures for
UBI volumes creation/removal - we have plenty of space there reserved
for future extensions.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
--
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