From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 02/13] jffs2 summary allocation: don't use vmalloc() From: David Woodhouse To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1217494095.3454.55.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <200807301934.m6UJYvtA012276@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20080730223924.3C51136129C@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <1217481315.9048.64.camel@sauron> <200807302356.29835.david-b@pacbell.net> <1217491258.9432.20.camel@sauron> <1217494095.3454.55.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:09:18 +0100 Message-Id: <1217495358.3454.76.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Brownell , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, trimarchimichael@yahoo.it, jwboyer@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > And we don't have to worry too much about proving a lower bound on the > size we'll want to use for the summary Or indeed whether it's an upper bound or a lower bound we'd need to calculate. More tea required... -- dwmw2