Execute in place.

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 11:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 10:57, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > For my flash chips, an erase operation is in the ballpark of a second.
> > That is very long for interrupts, so I would assume, we never complete
> > an erase without being interrupted.  Does this mean that a formerly
> > suspended and resumed erase operation completes quicker than a fresh
> > one? 
> 
> That appears to be the case, yes. Certainly, in the common case of it
> being 10ms before you get the next timer tick and consider rescheduling,
> the chip's made enough progress that it doesn't have to start again from
> scratch.

Oh, and bear in mind that if erases were happening and you were trying
to read from the filesystem, that was causing many many erase suspends
to happen too anyway -- if this was a problem, it would have bitten us
as soon as we started suspending erases to permit reads to happen.

-- 
dwmw2