From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170] helo=mgw-ext11.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HFScq-0001mn-GX for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:05:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: introduce sequential counter From: Artem Bityutskiy To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel In-Reply-To: <20070209055014.GA21893@lazybastard.org> References: <20070208200247.11853.36338.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <1170972968.4884.140.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070209055014.GA21893@lazybastard.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:19:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1171012796.16135.2.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: MTDML Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 05:50 +0000, J=C3=B6rn Engel wrote: > This is an unusual way of looking at time, but it is perfectly valid. > Whether an LEB is 40 seconds or 40 million years old is completely > inconsequential. What matters is not how much wall-clock time has > passed, but how much other data was written. "Bytes of data written" is > a valid unit of time, really, and a very useful one. Esp. for wear > leveling decisions. Yes, and the sequential counter is basically how many eraseblock were written to, which is close. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)