From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fish.redhat.com ([213.86.99.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 190iXz-0005B6-DB for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:44:59 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: John Burch In-Reply-To: <002201c2f91d$8c6ff330$1200a8c0@JOHNB> References: <002201c2f91d$8c6ff330$1200a8c0@JOHNB> Message-Id: <1049291095.2652.2.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 02 Apr 2003 14:44:56 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: RE: reach of jffs2 within image vs. partition List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 14:41, John Burch wrote: > Is there any advantage or disadvantage to creating the jffs2 image file > with the exact same size (via padding) as the partition, as opposed to > creating the jffs2 image with some size that's less than the partition > size? Not generally, no. If you use the 'cleanmarker' option then it'll prevent the kernel from erasing the remaining blocks on the first mount, and with some bootloaders you can't define a partition while installing an image which is smaller than the total intended size of that partition -- so you had to pad with 0xFF to avoid writing crap to the end of it. -- dwmw2