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

RE: $subject



On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Vipin Malik wrote:

[snip]
> Plus, more important, jffs on mtd is not a "generic" solution any more.
> The end user has to be aware of this limitation. Additionally
> most systems that I have worked on (or designed), this "advanced
> power fail warning" is only a few 10's of ms to a few hundred ms,
> which is not long enough for a sector erase even during the 
> early stages of the flash chip where the sector erase times are
> best case.
> 
> I think that a more generic solution that works regardless of 
> power fail warning is more robust, even if that means long mount
> times on sparse or empty file systems.
>  
> Maybe it can be an option in make config.
> "CONFIG_JFFS_FAST_MOUNT"- y/n (with num re-reads user defined) or 
> "CONFIG_JFFS_HIGH_CONFIDENCE_MOUNT"- y/n (which would erase all
> empty sectors). This way the user can choose depending on
> their application.

This brings me back to the ideas of traditional filesystems:
Is it possible to decide whether the jffs(2) was unmounted
cleanly?
If not mount 'high-confidend' otherwise mount fast.
I think to write some bytes to flash on unmounting is not as
fatal as the risk of having some unstable sectors because we can't 
forbid the users to power off their machines without suspend it 
before (sadly).  

  -- Barney


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