|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: disk write code - another bugRe: disk write code - another bug
From: Greg Haerr <greg_at_censoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:14:43 -0800 : I recommend you post your intentions before spending many hours rewriting the code. You still have not shown us how your code will work, and be substantially simpler. The only thing I have seen so far is your consolidated buffer code. And you haven't told us how you will change it so it does not hurt performance. OK. I've spent most of my time understanding how the current implementation works. I'm doing this for fun, as you are - if you're interested, I will describe in more detail how a slightly changed implementation would be superior. If you're not really interested, I'll back off. I would like to see the FAT32 implementation made simpler, without having to handle buffering special cases in three different places; that's my intention. This is because the filesystem and threading kernel form the basis of the rockbox system, and I think we're almost there to an elegant implementation for both ;-) I've found a couple of other places where the current code is not correct; I'll forward this information, it's not critical code. : Lets avoid repeating the font incident we had earlier, where one person spent a lot of time rewriting code in isolation and then became angry when I didn't accept his big patch. I agree completely. Certainly the FAT32 driver is the last thing we'd want to modify in a big way without a lot of testing. Actually, this is why I chose (for the fun of it) to implement the buffer-cache scheme without optimization for the first round - because I wanted to keep the filesystem running, which is far more important IMO than submitting a wholly new design. This iterative process is something I use a lot in my designs. Regards, Greg -- BjörnReceived on 2002-11-12 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |