[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Killing JFFS under 2.2
David Woodhouse wrote:
> Upon trying to mount the image which I posted, I see the messages below.
> Note that the offset passed to jffs_erasable_size is 0x2cfec8, which is
> equal to the address printed in the 7th line of the quoted log ("0xff ended
> at pos 2948808". Ignore the fact that it prints '0x%d' :)
> Should the jffs_scan_flash() function be rounding that address down to the
> nearest erase block, rather than just using it directly? Or should this
> arrangement never actually happen on the flash in the first place? ...
I'm not sure how this was implemented but IMHO you shouldn't start
writing in the middle of a sector. An inode can begin in the middle of
a sector if the beginning of that sector has already been used. If you
start writing anywhere on the flash, the beginning of the sectors will
most likely be wasted.
Did you change the fmc->sectorsize to match the actual size of the erase
sectors on your flash ?