From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Lmpsd-0002G1-6A for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:44:30 +0000 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:44:18 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] flash_eraseall: extra care if NOR flash is not BIT_WRITEABLE Message-ID: <20090326134418.GB21993@shareable.org> References: <1237848138-18157-1-git-send-email-sebastian@breakpoint.cc> <1237848138-18157-4-git-send-email-sebastian@breakpoint.cc> <1237874727.14602.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090324085530.GA21444@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> <1237962807.14602.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1237962807.14602.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > It sounds wrong to me to make flash_eraseall depend on how JFFS2 is > compiled... It sounds wrong to me as well. What if you're running flash_eraseall on one kernel - it might not even have JFFS2 - and then use the flash later with a different kernel with a different setting. -- Jamie