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 17ZfXE-0005GI-00 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:32:08 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: "invictus rm" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Jffs2 on MTD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:32:06 +0100 Message-ID: <14793.1028068326@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: invictus_rm@hotmail.com said: > I am not copying the jffs2 image on to the /dev/mtd3 before mouting > but rather copying the files after mounting ( i mean putting the > required files after i have mounted the /dev/mtdblock3) > The reason why i am doing this is becoz i do not need the directory > structure of a regular filesystem. Well, mkfs.jffs2 can happily make an image of a file system with no subdirectories too. > Does this make any difference in terms of flash usage as compared to > the case where i would have copied the jffs2.img to mtd3 and then > mounted it . Basically, no. The image created by mkfs.jffs2 will be _slightly_ smaller to start with, because it's not created incrementally. The difference should be negligible though, and will go away when the flash gets garbage-collected anyway. -- dwmw2