From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from softsteprubberfloors.com ([192.220.111.56] helo=rcmenter.iserver.net) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 18WhXo-0004yh-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:36:44 +0000 Subject: Re: CRAMFS on MTD/NAND Issue From: Russ Dill To: Henrik Nordstrom Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Srinivasu.Vaduguri@nokia.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1042139267.10724.34.camel@timmy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 09 Jan 2003 12:07:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 18:08, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Mount your rootfs _readonly_ and you have the _same_ including bad block > > handling. > > If a flag could be added to a jffs2 image denying it to be mounted > read-write then yes.. > I might reiterate that the end goal of cramfs is efficency, and decent speed. The end goal of jffs2 is quite different (although it still strives for those things). iirc, cramfs images usually end up being 5% to 10% smaller than jffs2 images, they boot a lot faster, the code is a lot smaller (especially helpfull if you want fs support in your bootloader) -- Russ Dill