CLEANMARKER question

["Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@lumentis.se>]

>joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
>> OK, I suspected that much. So after a CLEANMARKER there can be a
>> NODETYPE_INODE or a NODETYPE_DIRENT?
>
>Or indeed any other type of node, when new ones get invented - yes.
>
>> Why do you do 2 scan_empty() calls in scan_eraseblock() ?
>
>Consider it loop unrolling.
>
>> Well, sofar I have only identified one improvement. One could add an
>> isempty() function in the mtd layer. That would improve scaning for
>> empy flash so that you dont have to mtd->read() into a buffer and then
>> check the buffer for 0xffffffff. How does that sound?
>
>Sounds ugly, but could be effective. Want to benchmark it to see if it's
>really worth it?

I did a very ugly hack to see if there was a big difference.
on my FS(¨~62 MB flash partition, 31% in use) it took
12.2 sec to mount with my ugly hack and it
tackes 13.3 sec without the ugly hack.

I guess it's not worth it.

>
>
>If there's a way to safely avoid having to check all the node CRCs on
>mount, that would also help.

Yes, I once commented out all crc checking in scan just to see what happened
and there was a difference, but I can not remeber how much.

>
>The most useful thing to do, though, would probably be to implement
>checkpointing.
I have seen alot of posts about it but I have no idea on how to proceed
with this.

Would checkpointing  still speed up mount when power is cut and then
restored?