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 16mwbf-0002BD-00 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:51:19 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: "Stephen Bardsley" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: bad block recovery Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: <29597.1016456563@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: sbardsley@rlwinc.com said: > My understanding is that the chip is now "unreliable", which I can > live with for now. Does unreliable mean I can still use the chip if I > can somehow format it? Yes. Blocks can go bad during normal operation, and we have to be able to deal with that case _anyway_. My nftl_format program can be made to do some primitive tests on each erase block, and mark the completely broken ones as such before formatting. But (for the benefit of the peanut gallery) you should _only_ use nftl_format if you have already lost your bad block list. -- dwmw2