From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13Er0m-000566-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:23:32 +0100 Received: from athena.evoserve.com ([210.16.10.134]) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13Er0k-000560-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:23:30 +0100 Received: from evoserve.com (gateway.evoserve.com [210.16.10.120]) by athena.evoserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12599 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:25:29 +0800 Message-ID: <39758691.74272A26@evoserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:44:34 +0800 From: "Rogelio M. Serrano Jr." MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mtd@infradead.org Subject: multiple jffs_file_write calls Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: Does the VFS layer do the subdivision of large file writes such that it calls jffs_file_write multiple times with count exactly equal to MAX_CHUNK_SIZE? When jffs_file_write writes the chunk it appends the name and header to it and we end up with a chunk bigger than MAX_CHUNK_SIZE. Should we make VFS aware of mtd like what I think should be done or handle it in another way? What do you think? To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org