From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QaC4k-0001o9-9R for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:29:58 +0000 Received: by bwf12 with SMTP id 12so215840bwf.36 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: mkfs.jffs2 min erase block size: 4 vs 8 KiB From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:29:34 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <1308917226.7715.6.camel@koala> <1308943210.13493.10.camel@koala> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <1308943791.13493.16.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Yes, the other way is to teach JFFS2 to merge PEBs and work with > > multiple of PEBs. In fact in the past it could do this, but that was > > removed because of some issues, do not remember what. > > > > The only complication I see is bad blocks. When you merge PEBs and one > > of them is bad, then the good PEBs which are in this merge should be > > treated as bad as well. But this should not be very difficult to do. > > > > On the one hand, teaching JFFS2 deal with small PEBs seems to make more > > sense, on the other hand, doing this on driver level has an advantage - > > you do not have to modify the file-system and you automatically make UBI > > benefit from this - UBI scan time goes down when eraseblocks become > > larger. > > this is way above my familiarity with the code base. i'll just post > patches to update the docs. Fair enough - ones who really need to solve this issue can work on it - no need to do that if you do not really need this now. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)