From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MfrId-0000pH-Tj for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:22:44 +0000 Message-ID: <4A939F3C.70808@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:22:20 +0300 From: Artem Bityutskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: Ideal NAND flashes for JFFS2 or YAFFS References: <4A8FAEFA.6070304@gmail.com> <4A92E0EA.1050406@billgatliff.com> In-Reply-To: <4A92E0EA.1050406@billgatliff.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Joakim Tjernlund List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 08/24/2009 09:50 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> hmm, maybe I should look at UBIFS too :) > > I'm currently a big fan of UBIFS for NAND. I'd take a look at it. > > I haven't compared it to YAFFS2, but UBIFS is in mainline kernels, where > YAFFS2 isn't. That gives UBIFS bonus points for convenience. And so far > for me, UBIFS has been really, really solid. Thanks for positive feedback. We were working hard :-) -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)