[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Killing JFFS under 2.2
Finn Hakansson wrote:
> Hi Björn!
> 1. Of course that is right. What I meant was that the bug that caused this to
> happen was more important to find than to be able to recover from it. It makes
> the file system more robust if we're able to catch strange things on the flash
> during the scan. That I agree on.
> Perhaps we should take a new look at the jffs_scan_flash routine? When one
> thinks about it, even funnier JFFS images could be constructed in order to see
> if the scanning works.
> 2. I don't understand this myself either. It's funny. It's just like if
> schedule() or something has been called somewhere. The code that we use is not
> _exactly_ the same as the MTD folks are using.
The function flash_erase_region has been rewritten by someone
(presumably Alexander Larsson) for MTD. In the MTD version, there's :
schedule(); /* Wait for flash to finish. */
/* FIXME: We could have been interrupted here. We don't deal with it */