Il 04/08/2015 09:21, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
Andrea,

Am 04.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Andrea Scian:
I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.

We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required for old 
SLC ;-)

I think this needs more discussion.

Boris, Brian, will you be at Embedded Linux Conference Europe in Dublin?
Maybe we can discuss these issues (data retention, ff-checks, etc...) in person 
and
> figure out where to address them.
I really want to avoid ad-hoc solutions. :)

Maybe I'll be at ELCE this year too
I'll be glad to meet all of you in person and participate to this discussion. :)

It will be nice if also some silicon vendor would like to participate. I know that someone from micron is actively following us on this ML, but I don't really know if there's someone here in Europe. :)


Thanks.
In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the overhead
>> or does it enable too much checks?

You mean the other checks bedside of self_check_write()? You can comment them 
out
> for your tests.

Thanks,
//richard


Kind Regards,

--

Andrea SCIAN

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

Reply via email to