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

Re: Major JFFS2 bug (?)



Have you tried a similar test that does

write n bytes data to tempfile
mv tempfile to old filename

over and over to multiple files? In this case after a reboot the
filename files should alway either contain all the new or all the old
bytes. Note that after reboot you may have to delete tempfile if that
exists.

This is the interface a posix app should be using so I'd like to know if
you can ever get file corruption that way.

Vipin Malik wrote:
> 
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > vipin.malik@xxxxxxx.com said:
> > >  HeHe. I think we setteled this bug/feature thing long ago :)
> > > I agreed that it's not a bug, but would be a _really_ nice feature to
> > > have in JFFS2.
> >
> > Indeed, but I wasn't sure if I'd led you to believe that you could expect
> > atomicity of sub-page writes; just not larger ones. Which you can't.
> 
> That's what I had understood from you (that write()'s with data
> < PAGE_SIZE) should be
> power fail safe. But your explanation makes sense.
> 
> > More to the point, I hadn't realised your bug report was about this and
> > taken if off my TODO list :)
> >
> 
> :( So this _feature_ request will go unanswered?
> 
> Vipin
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxx.com

-- 
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g>
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.

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