[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time for JFFS3?
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 09:41 +0000, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> > 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.
Rewriting it from scratch once was fun, and probably beneficial. I
wouldn't want to do it again yet until we have some dramatically better
> How about to exclude the eCos support from JFFS3 (don't kill me please :-)
> ) ?
I don't see why. It doesn't really hurt much, surely?
I'm perfectly happy to let it die if there's no interest from the eCos
side and it bitrots, but I wouldn't want to just decide to drop it.
> 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...
JFFS2 will refuse to mount the filesystem when it sees unknown nodes --
just like ext2 will refuse to mount an uncleanly mounted ext3 file
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to email@example.com