From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.198] helo=moskovskaya.fh-wedel.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EHgQ7-000478-F2 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:37:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:36:16 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" Message-ID: <20050920113616.GD2143@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20050920102436.GC2143@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <1127213984.20014.34.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1127213984.20014.34.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Cc: zhao forrest , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]Add JFFS2 eraseblock header support List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 20 September 2005 14:59:43 +0400, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 12:24 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > 4 old JFFS2 binaries reject mounting new JFFS2 images > > > > Why this? > > Because he changed cleanmarker to the EB header (eraseblock header). Old > binaries got confused by this since there are working no compatibility > flags in cleanmarkers. WTF? Old code can simply delete the EB. You lost all the goodies from EB, sure, but they are only optimization. So who cares? > Moreover, we are going to implement the 1:1 mapping at the same time. > > If old binary mounts new image, it starts writing its cleanmarkers, use > 1:N mapping etc. A "mixed" image appears. Afterwords, if this mixed > image is being mounted on new JFFS2 binary, what poor Zhao is supposed > to do? There will be too much ugliness in the code to handle that. Please don't mix those two problems. 1:1 mapping has been dealt with. If you don't like how it has been dealt with, complain in the context of 1:1 mapping. Jörn -- When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson