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

Re: [PATCH] --cleanmarkers option in mkfs.jffs2

johan.adolfsson@xxxxxxx.com said:
>  That doesn't sound like an optimal solution ;-)

True :)

> How about adding erase size in the clean marker? That way we could now
> how much free space to expect when writing,  and could use that
> instead of the erase size we really have until the block  is garbage
> collected.

I'm not sure it would help in the case where the cleanmarker says a smaller 
erase size than the hardware. I think we should just stuck 'probably' empty 
blocks on a separate list and finish scanning them before actually starting 
to use them.

>  BTW: Isn't it really a user error to create an image with the  wrong
> erase size and something that seldom happens in real life?

Not always. It's usually been safe to make a JFFS2 image with erase size 
smaller than the hardware, so people making images for the iPAQ, for 
example, will build images with 0x20000 erase size to match the H3100 in 
the knowledge that it'll work OK on the H3600 and others.


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