MTD concat layer

[Robert Kaiser]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Jörn Engel wrote:

> dwmw2 wrote: 
> > Fewer wrapper layers to go through. Look at the part_read() call I 
> > implemented - is that really so bad for the case where people don't have 
> > multiple 'sections' in each partition?
> 
> Are fewer wrapper layers really an advantage? They don't improve
> maintainability or correctness, nor do they give new features.
> An additional wrapper only needs one additional function call, so
> execution time should not degrade much. But it will actually improve,
> whenever you don't need the additional layer.

I fully agree! Nevertheless I am considering to make another attempt to
code it according to David's suggestions. That would give us some
hard data for comparison. Problem is I can't afford to spend much
time on this, so it may take a while.

Could the current code go into CVS in the meantime as a provisional
solution ? (I keep seeing people ask for this functionality)

> Apart from that, it is often quite a good idea to write the same code
> twice. First implementations usually suck, especially mine.

:-)

Actually, for a "first implementation", I'm quite happy with the concat
layer (apart from the erase function bug that David spotted -- I'll
provide a fix for it next week). But then again, this isn't really the
first implementation, only the first one I dared to post :-)

Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kaiser                          email: rkaiser at sysgo.de
SYSGO RTS GmbH
Am Pfaffenstein 14
D-55270 Klein-Winternheim / Germany    fax:   (49) 6136 9948-10