[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jffs_erasable_size: offset = 0x0034b000
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Sébastien Côté wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > > > We'll probably leave the 2.0 as it is, and when we switch to 2.4
> > > > we'll either use mtd or just keep going with our own little flash.c
> > > > (which works fine :)
> > >
> > > It looks like 2.4 will have the MTD code in it already - Linus included
> > > Tuesday's snapshot in 2.4.0-test3-pre4.
> > Ouch, it's got jffs too. The invalidate_inode_pages(inode) patch should
> > really be applied to it. I haven't had time to test it, but it's almost
> > certainly correct, and it is broken without it.
> I don't think JFFS is ready to be included in the kernel. It hasn't
> been tested a lot (the 2.2 and 2.4 ports) and I'm sure we'll find many
> bugs (the invalidate_inode_pages bug is a good example of a huge bug
> that we almost missed). Just today, I untarred the source code of a
> program on a JFFS partition, tried to compile it and got a read error
> from jffs_readpage().
Doing write()'s with the O_APPEND flag is not working correctly in jffs. Some
strange read errors might occur because of that.
// Simon Kågström