State of UBI

[dedekind]

>On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:00 +0400, dedekind wrote:
>> Full analogy with LVM. It'd be strange not to follow this model.
>
>Show me the changes that were made to ext3 to make it capable of
>mounting these new "LVM devices" where previously it could only do block
>devices.

I love your tricky questions :-)

Ok, the analogy is indeed not full and stops here. LVM does not change
semantics - you still have block devices with 2 operation - read and write.
I noted this already.

In case of UBI we do have meny semantical changes.

* UBI volumes are bad block free even if the underlying flash may have them
  (like NAND). UBI hides this completely.
* UBI volumes wear are free, i.e., you may use the same eraseblock as much as
  you want and the wear will anyway be distributed over whole flash.
* erase is always asynchronous, i.e., you call erase and it is scheduled for
  erasure in context of the UBI background task.
* we have eraseblock type hints which are useful to let UBI know which
  eraseblock it should pick (with low erase couter, or high, or medium).
  This is not present in MTD.
* UBI maintains volume update operation. This is absent in MTD.
* UBI maintains GC hints. They are useful for a file system to to avoid
  moving eraseblock which are going to be GCed anyway. This is not present
  in MTD. And this is not implemented yet. But is planned.
* UBI maintains atomic eraseblock change operation. This means you may
  change the contents of a LEB atomically. MTD is devoid of this nice
  property which is extremely useful for FSes (e.g., you may garbage
  collect without having a spare logical eraseblock). This is not yet
  implemented but it is easy to implement and it is panned.
* UBI volumes may be dynamically created, deleted and resized. MTD
  assumes only static stuff.

I believe the list is not full. New UBI-oriented software will certainly
make use of these properties and won't work on top of MTD.

For example, JFFS3 assumes that it does not have to think about
wear-levelling. And it makes no sense to use it on top of MTD. It is
UBI-oriented. And it needs only native UBI interface.

Nevertheless, having MTD interface is not a big geal. We may make gluebi
a part of UBI. Then you'll have native interface and MTD-like interfave for
legacy software.


VS. my changes in JFFS2 which make it usable on top of UBI. As soon as we
have gluebi we can forget about it.

Artem.