From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out.bhp.t-online.de ([195.145.119.39] helo=orvill.bhp.t-online.de) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 18JeTw-0008VR-00 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:42:48 +0000 Received: from ylva.bhp.t-online.de (ylva.ada.t-online.de [172.30.8.40]) by smtp-out.bhp.t-online.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 (built Feb 21 2002)) with SMTP id <0H6M00BWL01GK5@smtp-out.bhp.t-online.de> for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:12:53 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:10:51 +0100 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Problem: 51MB partition max size on jffs2 In-reply-to: <20021204190914.6D7CD48FD@tiger.actrix.co.nz> To: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz, David Woodhouse , Dave Ellis Cc: 'Ken Offer' , "'linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org'" Reply-to: tglx@linutronix.de Message-id: <200212042010.51999.tglx@linutronix.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00512BA4F9D3D311912A009027E9B8F407E4A3@NT> <200212042001.08259.tglx@linutronix.de> <20021204190914.6D7CD48FD@tiger.actrix.co.nz> 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: On Wednesday 04 December 2002 20:04, Charles Manning wrote: > On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 December 2002 19:46, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > DGE@sixnetio.com said: > > > > kmalloc() is limited to 128K and the 128MB Flash needs more than > > > > twice that, > > > > > > > > so I tried vmalloc() and it seems to be OK (at least with PPC 2.4.18 > > > > patched for the new MTD code). Does anyone know if this change is > > > > safe? > > > > > > You need to change the corresponding kfree() to vfree(). > > > > That's right. In actual CVS-code this problem is solved by building > > virtual blocks of 2,4 or 8 physical blocks. > > Does this have an impact on performance? Not at all. It just consumes less memory. Maybe garbage collect is a little bit slower, but I did not notice a remarkable change. -- Thomas ____________________________________________________ linutronix - competence in embedded & realtime linux http://www.linutronix.de mail: tglx@linutronix.de