Re: Preventing JFFS2 partial page writes?

[Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:05:25PM +0100, Peter Barada wrote:
(...)
> >> Another issue this exposes is that JFFS2 reads/compares the cleanmarker
> >> w/o any ECC in the marker data to verify its validity - if a bitflip in
> >> an unECC'd cleanmarker is read back, then I think JFFS2 will fail to use
> >> that block.
> > No, I think what JFFS2 should do is just assume the eraseblock needs
> > erasure and just erase it. The whole purpose of clean markers is to
> > erase less. If it is corrupted - we just do an extra erase - not big
> > deal.
> How's the best way to do this?  That would make this whole problem just 
> go away, and make MLC devices much more happy with JFFS2.

I think Artem was just explaining that a single corrupted cleanmarker is no
big deal, it just forces JFFS2 to perform an extra erase. That does not mean
you can get rid of cleanmarkers, because systematically erasing a block before
programming it would seriously degrade write performance.

--
Best Regards,

Ivan