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

Re: Time for JFFS3?



> If the name is JFFS3 than I aggree with Josh and a separated directory
> should be better. But this name may suggest some more redesign/rewrite
> (maybe rewrite from scratch?).

IMHO the JFFS3 from scratch is not very good idea. My experience working 
with JFFS2 shows to me that JFFS2 it is tricker that I always thought. 
There are many many different aspects and it is very hard to keep them in 
mind together. So, I believe, if we start from scratch, we may result in 
filesystem that is worse then JFFS2 :-)

I think the best way is to start from JFFS2. Ten we may evolutionary 
change it, trying to get better filesystem.

How about to exclude the eCos support from JFFS3 (don't kill me please :-) 
) ?

> To me it implies a break in backwards-compatibility more than a rewrite.
> Like ext2/ext3.
I just think about the possibility to change the format of some nodes. In 
this case, if we mount JFFS2 image using JFFS3, we write JFFS3 nodes 
there. As the result we have the image with mixed JFFS2 + JFFS3 nodes. How 
to determine which file-system is this on the next mount? I believe, this 
is solvable, but I suspect this will not be easy...

--
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.

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