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 18GHcr-0008Lo-00 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:42:05 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20021125120649.GB18046@codepoet.org> References: <20021125120649.GB18046@codepoet.org> <20021125111843.GA17562@codepoet.org> <1319.1038224945@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> To: andersen@codepoet.org Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: mkfs.jffs2.c rework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: <3752.1038226353@passion.cambridge.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: andersen@codepoet.org said: > Hmm. Ok, your're the boss. I guess we can pretend it's always 4096 > as long as the kernel code is doing the right thing. It looked like > the kernel code was assuming the block size matched the page cache > size. No big deal. We assume that no node crosses a page boundary. It's fine for there to be nodes which are _smaller_ than a page, just not larger. > I suppose so, the code is pretty clean now I think. Whats a > cleanmarker? :) Small node written to the beginning of each erased block to mark it as being properly erased. Otherwise the JFFS2 code will erase it again just to make sure. Currently we do this for the free space in a partition after it's first mounted -- if our jffs2 image is padded to the right length and has cleanmarkers in, we wouldn't need to. I don't think we want it to be the default though -- we'd have to ensure the erase size was correct if we did that. -- dwmw2