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 17KL3I-0004pC-00 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:37:52 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1024414167.9366.9.camel@geb> References: <1024414167.9366.9.camel@geb> To: Chris AtLee Cc: Linux MTD Subject: Re: JFFS & MTDBLOCK Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:37:36 +0100 Message-ID: <14188.1024414656@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: catlee@canada.com said: > I'm not sure that I understand what this means... > Does it mean that for production units where you want the filesystem > to be writeable you should use JFFS on a non-MTDBLOCK device? > Or does it mean that using a filesystem other than JFFS for writing to > a MTDBLOCK device is probably a bad idea? It means the latter. When you mount JFFS/JFFS2 on an mtdblock device, it doesn't actually _use_ the read/modify/erase/writeback algorithm described -- or indeed use the mtdblock driver at all -- it just uses the minor number of the mtdblock device you specified to get a handle on the real underlying MTD device. Using any _other_ file system than JFFS/JFFS2 on the mtdblock device other than in read-only mode is a bad idea. -- dwmw2