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 16A758-0002aI-00 for ; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 10:09:14 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Aleksander Sanochkin Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, jffs-dev@axis.com Subject: Re: JFFS1 scan procedure Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 10:19:48 +0000 Message-ID: <16812.1007201988@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: asanochkin@Lnxw.COM said: > I've been using JFFS1 for some time and faced a problem that the JFFS1 > scan procedure is not robust enough. Namely, it expects that the flash > region it scans is either erased or is in a state left by JFFS1 > itself. That is, it doesn't expect that the flash is containing a > "garbage", which can be the case sometimes. This looks sane to me, although I'll admit that JFFS1 is a vague and distant memory - I have enough trouble remembering the details of JFFS2 :) Unless someone else objects to it shortly, feel free to go ahead and commit it. Please could I ask you to make the layout of the new code match what was there already though? Curly braces on the same line as the if() statement, etc. I'll refrain from being pedantic about printks without priorities as that _does_ actually match the existing code :) -- dwmw2