In-Reply-To: Unable to access JFFS2 filesystem

In-Reply-To: Unable to access JFFS2 filesystem

[thomaspang]

(resend due to broken thread)

With David's patches, I am able to access the JFFS2 file system.  
Thanks.  However, the following weird behaviors are observed:
 
- incorrect filesystem meta-data or not properly displayed when
  issuing "ls" command.

    # ls -al
    drwxr-xr-x    1 root     root            0 Dec 11  2003 .
    drwxr-xr-x    1 root     root            0 Dec 11  2003 ..
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 bin
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 dev
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec  9  2003 etc
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 lib
    lrwxrwxrwx    1 501      501            11 Dec 11  2003 linuxrc -> bin/busybox
    drwxr-xr-x    1 root     root            0 Jan  1 00:28 mnt
    dr-xr-xr-x   21 root     root            0 Jan  1 00:00 proc
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 sbin
    drwxrwxrwt    1 501      501             0 Jan  1 00:27 tmp
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 usr
    drwxr-xr-x    1 501      501             0 Dec 11  2003 var
 
    # df .
    Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% 
    Mounted on
    rootfs                    1024       740       284  72% /
 
   Even though there are files inside bin/ directory, the size
   of that directory displayed is 0. 
 
- copying file within its own partition results in the following
  error messages.  This problem is happened to the JFFS2 root 
  filesystem  only.
 
  ...
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  Raw node at 0x0005ccc0 wasn't in node lists for ino #109
  ...
 
- The write performance is kind of poor.  I have tried to copy
  files of different sizes from CRAMFS to JFFS2, or from JFFS2
  to another JFFS2 partition.  On average, the copying speed
  is approx. 7.5 kbytes/sec.  It seems too slow.
 
Any suggestions / comments are much appreciated.
 
Thomas
 

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thayne Harbaugh <tharbaugh@lnxi.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:32 am
> Subject: Re: Unable to access JFFS2 filesystem
> 
> > On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 12:25, thomaspang@shaw.ca wrote:
> > > I repost this message as I do not get any response.
> > 
> > > Primary Vendor Command Set: 0002 (AMD/Fujitsu Standard)
> > 
> > It appears that you are using cfi_cmdset_0002.  Please try David
> > Vrabel's patches and let me know if things change.
> > 
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2003-
> > December/009001.htmlhttp://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-
> > mtd/2003-December/009009.html
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thayne Harbaugh
> > Linux Networx
> > 

Re: In-Reply-To: Unable to access JFFS2 filesystem

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 11:40 -0800, thomaspang@shaw.ca wrote:
> (resend due to broken thread)

Stop it. Use a non-broken mailer which inserts References: and
In-Reply-To: headers correctly, or refrain from posting to the list. 

Removing 'Re:' from the subject of what you post, just to get round the
automatic filtering while still breaking the threading, is not
acceptable behaviour and will get you a personal entry in the blacklist.

-- 
dwmw2