From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from asav1.lyse.net ([213.167.96.68]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EAncf-0002mr-Ur for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:52:55 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind?= Harboe To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel In-Reply-To: <20050901114438.GA694@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20050901100535.GA30932@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de><1125573176.30825.1 7.camel@localhost.localdomain><20050901114438.GA694@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:52:35 +0200 Message-Id: <1125575555.4884.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: PATCH: allow JFFS2 to write to really small disks List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > What do you think? >=20 > I think that most users don't want JFFS2 to run in WORM mode. And for > those users, failing on every write is actually better. They notice > the problem right away, not just after a while. But who mounts a *tiny* JFFS2 volume except those that will be using it as a WORM drive? This group of users could well be even tinier than those that want WORM drives.=20 My conclusion: Make it a WORM drive if it is too small to support read/write many times. > People that want WORM mode are the minority and therefore should be > the ones that are inconvenienced. I agree with this principle, but my assumptions are different than yours, hence I'm currently leaning towards a different conclusion. --=20 =D8yvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com