From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17h7zE-00061G-00 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:19:52 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <3D623224.1090604@hp.com> References: <3D623224.1090604@hp.com> <007201c247e0$1022fcd0$a15f040f@SNAGGLE> <32719.1029838865@redhat.com> To: Jamey Hicks Cc: Christopher Hoover , "'Conn Clark'" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=27J=F6rn_Engel=27?= , "'MTD Mailing List'" Subject: Re: How does one mount an existing jffs2 partition so it is writeable? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:19:14 +0100 Message-ID: <12777.1029845954@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: jamey.hicks@hp.com said: > I would much rather that JFFS2 not unlock blocks automatically. We > tend to lock blocks for a reason (e.g., so that we don't accidentally > erase the boot loader with incorrect mount options). I think it > would be reasonable for JFFS2 to query whether flash is locked > beforehand and to mount read-only. I think it would also be > reasonable to provide a mount option directing it to unlock flash. Yeah -- you're probably right. That's the reason I refused to do the automatic unlock when it was originally suggested. We are fairly good about aborting a mount attempt if it really doesn't look like a JFFS2 partition, but if you have the partitioning wrong so that the range we try to mount includes some JFFS2 _and_ something important, that's still going to break. -- dwmw2