[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Major JFFS2 bug (?)
> >The question 'what does a complete operation mean' is application
> All true statements, and I don't disagree with any of them, except- why
> can't we say that if we define "a complete operation", as asked by you
Because it happens to suit one specific app ? Umm I dont think you follwed my
point. You are talking about hard to implement things that serve just your
needs for this one app. Suppose for example there is 200K free and I do a 400K
over write of existing data. Now what happens ?
> If you bear with me and follow the reasoning: JFFS was designed with this
> express purpose in mind. It *does* already implement "roll back" to older
No JFFS was designed to come back after random power failures, to wear level
and to sidestep irritating and silly patents. It wasnt designed to do
transactions for your app.
> this granuality is available to the app level (as a single system write()
> call is broken up into multiple jffs2_write() calls). I am making a case, if
> possible, for exporting this feature at the system write() command interface
> for the app level to use. Why is that too much to ask?
You want to clutter the kernel to solve an app specific problem. One with a lot
of quite simple solutions including markers and garbage collection
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to email@example.com