From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp14.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.23.69]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Dv91n-00042R-QO for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:30:12 -0400 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1401.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DFB1470000A4 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:30:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.123.151] (ATuileries-111-1-1-141.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.62.141]) by mwinf1401.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A7E4770000BD for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:30:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Jean-Philippe Francois To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1121776529.2565.34.camel@fedorabox> References: <1121776529.2565.34.camel@fedorabox> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1121844600.2619.8.camel@fedorabox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:30:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Understanding jffs2 warning message Reply-To: jp.francois@cynove.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:35, Jean-Philippe Francois wrote: > Hi, > > I am doing some test on a JFFS2 file system. > It is installed on a Macronix Flash 29LV320, with top boot block. > The part are cfi probed, and it works (almost) fine. > > I am doing some tar/untar loop [1]. Every six or seven loop, I have a > serie of 8 warning messages : > > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001040) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00001044) > Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen in node ref (0x00000768) > > I looked at the code, but I don't understand what is the meaning of > these messages. > Do you think it can be related to the Top Boot Block layout of this > flash (ie last 64 k sector is replaced by 8 8k sector) ? > I might be wrong, but I think the sector layout and erase size is taken > into account by CFI probing ? Looking into the archive, I think I am in the case described by [1]. The driver know about the various erase regions, but doesn't transmit this info to partition level. What is the status of the patch in [1] ? It is not part of the mtd code in 2.6.12 kernel. Regards, JP Francois [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-December/011320.html