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 17ZfcW-0005H9-00 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:37:36 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <200207251914.g6PJEbs25931@hofr.at> References: <200207251914.g6PJEbs25931@hofr.at> To: Der Herr Hofrat Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: MAX_NAME in jffs2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:37:34 +0100 Message-ID: <14897.1028068654@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: der.herr@mail.hofr.at said: > > is there a particular reson for jffs and jffs2 to have a 254 > character filename limit and ext2/ext3/reiserfs 255 (probably others to - > excluding minix/msdos/M$) ?? There probably is hardly a case where this > will realy hurt, but a test bit it so I wondered what the reson for this > 254 is... ISTR there may have been a reason in JFFS, but I can't remember it. JFFS2 just inherited it -- one of the few things that hasn't actually changed. We want to keep file names relatively short because dirent nodes can't be split across eraseblock boundaries. -- dwmw2