From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: How stable is jffs2 summarize option? From: David Woodhouse To: Joakim Tjernlund In-Reply-To: References: <201005311503.42629.muehlfelder@enertex.de> <1275383715.25797.14.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <201006011126.23862.muehlfelder@enertex.de> <1275384788.25797.17.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:38:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1275388737.25797.89.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Thorsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FChlfelder?= , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:50 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:26 +0200, Thorsten Mühlfelder wrote: > > > and what do you think about switching to yaffs2? I know it is developed > > > elsewhere, but it seems to be a good alternative to jffs2+summary and > > > probably switching is easier than to ubifs. > > > > Why would you think that switching to something that isn't part of the > > Linux kernel would be easier than switching to ubifs? That seems... odd. > > Yes, if ubifs doesn't fit, perhaps have a look at the recently added > logfs? > > Jocke > > BTW, I once tried JFFS2 summary and it didn't make much of a difference for us. Did you use 'sumtool' after creating your images? For reasons which are now lost in the mists of time, that support wasn't just added directly to mkfs.jffs2. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation