From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170] helo=mgw-ext11.nokia.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HSFH8-0007B2-7v for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:27:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Obsolete nodes that are unlinked when possible From: Artem Bityutskiy To: joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se In-Reply-To: <1174061640.26465.235.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> References: <1174059907.26465.228.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <1174061640.26465.235.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:27:09 +0200 Message-Id: <1174062429.11160.10.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Joakim, On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:14 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Ouch, I just discovered that JFFS2_SUMMARY disables > jffs2_can_mark_obsolete(c). Is this really needed for all > obsolete cases? >=20 > SUMMARY really implies that a better automatic GC is needed, since > your > fs will be littered with deletion entries.=20 I am not the author of this stuff, so I probably not the right person for CC :-) But it is understandable why they did this - because otherwise it would need marking corresponding entries in summary as obsolete, and here you have a problem of an unclean reboot between marking the node and the summary entry obsolete. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)