From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22459 invoked by alias); 20 May 2009 01:02:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22194 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2009 01:02:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 May 2009 01:02:36 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id n4K09N425567; Wed, 20 May 2009 01:09:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from [172.31.1.127] (neelix.jifvik.org [172.31.1.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0CE3FEB; Wed, 20 May 2009 01:09:22 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4A134A31.4080806@jifvik.org> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:02:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Kallweit Cc: "ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org" Subject: Re: NAND review References: <4A126D59.7070404@intefo.ch> In-Reply-To: <4A126D59.7070404@intefo.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 Simon Kallweit wrote: > Well these are my first thoughts on the prereleased code. I hope more > people take a look at it and we can have a discussion and soon decide > which NAND framework we're going to use. Just to clarify something here, I don't think it's a case of this one or that one. Provided someone is prepared to put in the effort, it is possible to have a mix of both, with the best aspects of both. It seems unlikely to me that one of them will be superior to the other in every way. Like you, I'm also concerned about some aspects of Ross's use of partitioning (and have emailed some details privately to him about that). But I'm also concerned about possibly having too much layering in Rutger's version for small simple implementations. I guess we'll wait for Ross to reply with more detail on his rationale for the differences to Rutger's. Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine