[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Expected behavior of JFFS?

martin.gadbois@xxxxxxx.com said:
>  Right. It was quick and dirty to see if it was working. Laziness on
> my part... I'll fix and deposit (without messing the indentation this
> time).

Heh. I cleaned it up last night. Make sure you update before doing anything 
more, and if there is more to clean up, could you do it in the fs/cjffs 
version too?

martin.gadbois@xxxxxxx.com said:
>  How about directing GC, or more precisly jffs_rewrite_data(), to a
> file that needs it badly? In other words, go on a per file basis, and
> if this file exceed a node-to-size ratio, we "jffs_rewrite_data()" it?

Hmmm. GC'ing out of order could eat up all our free space. We could do it 
when there's slack space available. Otherwise it gets 'interesting'. And 
it's interesting enough already :)

martin.gadbois@xxxxxxx.com said:
>  Again, this thing is useful when the amount of node in use is
> extreme. We could just increase the base limit (25) to 100, and GC
> would be less triggered, and Mark would be happy too. 

Mark may be happy if it stops doing it. I, on the other hand, will only be 
happy if I know it'll never do it again.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxx.com