From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse To: Sherwin Liu In-Reply-To: <20031119163841.9458.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031119163841.9458.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1069261772.31205.26.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:09:35 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: REF_PRISTINE node ... List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 08:38 -0800, Sherwin Liu wrote: > "REF_PRISTINE node at XX had a previous non-hole frag > in the same page. Tell dwmw2." > > Is this just a debugging message, or is it an > indication of something wrong? It's basically harmless, and should be gone if you update to the current CVS JFFS2 code. A while ago, I implemented a garbage-collection optimisation; if a node is expected to be identical when we write out a replacement, we can avoid decompressing and recompressing it if we just copy the whole thing intact. So I start keeping track of such 'pristine' nodes which were an optimal representation of their data... and that message warns me of one case where such a node marked REF_PRISTINE but shouldn't have been. -- dwmw2