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

Re: kmalloc jffs2_do_mount_fs



On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 05:13 +0200, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
> but why doe you not apply it to the source or warn because of this
> "jffs2" problem???

Partly because I'm unconvinced that we want to actually _use_ such a
small erasesize. It means you split far more page writes into two nodes
to avoid crossing block boundaries, and hence waste space.

I suspect the main reason Thomas objected to my original 'min 64KiB' was
because of the 5-erase-block threshold. Since I've just wound that
threshold _up_ on NAND because and it's also based in part on nr_blocks
now, we could perhaps rethink the minimum erasesize. I didn't manage to
tie him down on #mtd yesterday though.

-- 
dwmw2



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