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 15oSNW-0002Bx-00 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:26:42 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20011002091421.A15650@recycle.lbl.gov> References: <20011002091421.A15650@recycle.lbl.gov> To: Larry Doolittle Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: JFFS2_RESERVED_BLOCKS_* Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:35:44 +0100 Message-ID: <30731.1002040544@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: ldoolitt@recycle.lbl.gov said: > Maybe my use is atypical, and maybe 5 blocks is a theoretical > minimum. I don't want to sound like a complainer, either -- this file > system certainly looks like it meets my needs. I guess I just want to > point out the superficial imbalance between the amount of sweat people > pour out on projects like busybox to reduce code size by a few kB, > when there is 320 kB "just lying around" on any JFFS2 on a 64 kB erase > block chip. Theoretical minimum is one block, not five. Give me formal proof that this is also the _practical_ minimum, and we can drop the overly-conservative limits. Actually, we'd drop it to two, to allow for at least one block going bad on us. More than two on NAND flash. -- dwmw2