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

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

ds@xxxxxxx.org said:
>  Can you (or someone) comment on whether or not JFFS2 satisfies the
> necessary criteria for a POSIX-compliant file system?  I could not
> (quickly) find a reference to what qualifies as a POSIX file system,
> otherwise I would have checked myself. 

Haven't looked at how much is required and how much is optional. We now 
support hard links, but we still don't do atime - at least, we don't update 
atime each time an inode is accessed, as we should.

Other than atime, I'm not aware of anything missing, but I haven't checked 
against a spec either.

ds@xxxxxxx.org said:
> > Note that once you realise you only need to keep a cache of
> > (dev,inode) tuples for inodes with i_nlink > 1, rather than every inode
> > you touch, and that you only need to look into that cache when you're 
> > writing out such an inode, it becomes a much more feasible task.

> That actually seems to be more complicated than checking every inode.
> That is, if you consider if(n_links>1) more complicated.

The code has two extra lines in it (including the close-brace), so it's 
slightly more complicated. However, the cache is far smaller so you don't 
need to bother with hashing it nicely, etc. The net effect is that it's 
simpler and faster.


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