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 17ZrvO-0006Yy-00 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:45:54 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20020731103419.GA23749@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20020731103419.GA23749@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <14572.1028067711@redhat.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: jffs2_scan_eraseblock() - errors Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:45:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2881.1028115952@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: joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de said: > How exactly is this done? On the next mount after the failed write? > By toggling bits in the status word of the node header? By marking it obsolete. It's an optimisation. > If so, this will not work with any of the shiny STMicro chips with > hardware ECC, so I would have to tackle that one too, once we merge. Doesn't matter. Our other plans for deferring CRC checking will avoid the harmless complaint. -- dwmw2