* JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?
@ 2003-02-24 6:25 Arne Jonsson
2003-02-24 6:55 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arne Jonsson @ 2003-02-24 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd
Hello!
As I understand JFFS2 is not publically available for the 2.0-kernel.
Can anyone give some opinions of how much work a backport (from 2.4 to
2.0) effort would be?
Any pointers of where the big problems are?
Is it even possible?
Best regards,
/Arne Jonsson
--
Arne Jonsson
i3 micro technology AB
Phone:+46-8-506 388 00
Fax: +46-8-506 388 75
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?
2003-02-24 6:25 JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel? Arne Jonsson
@ 2003-02-24 6:55 ` David Woodhouse
2003-02-24 7:08 ` Arne Jonsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-02-24 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 06:25, Arne Jonsson wrote:
> As I understand JFFS2 is not publically available for the 2.0-kernel.
> Can anyone give some opinions of how much work a backport (from 2.4 to
> 2.0) effort would be?
> Any pointers of where the big problems are?
> Is it even possible?
It would be quite a lot of work; the file system layer in Linux changed
dramatically between the 2.0 and 2.2 kernels. You'd have a better chance
of porting to 2.2 -- in fact I think someone's already done so.
Why do you want 2.0?
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?
2003-02-24 6:55 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2003-02-24 7:08 ` Arne Jonsson
2003-02-24 7:17 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arne Jonsson @ 2003-02-24 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd
David Woodhouse wrote:
> It would be quite a lot of work; the file system layer in Linux changed
> dramatically between the 2.0 and 2.2 kernels. You'd have a better chance
> of porting to 2.2 -- in fact I think someone's already done so.
I was afraid of that, but we need the 2.0 kernel (at least for now).
> Why do you want 2.0?
We are using using JFFS with MTD and the uClinux 2.0.38 kernel. I have
some concerns re. JFFS and powercycling and as I understand the JFFS2 is
more robust. Another option would be to make JFFS more robust but I
assume that that might be an even bigger challenge.
Best regards,
/Arne Jonsson
--
Arne Jonsson
i3 micro technology AB
Phone:+46-8-506 388 00
Fax: +46-8-506 388 75
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?
2003-02-24 7:08 ` Arne Jonsson
@ 2003-02-24 7:17 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2003-02-24 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 07:08, Arne Jonsson wrote:
> > Why do you want 2.0?
> We are using using JFFS with MTD and the uClinux 2.0.38 kernel. I have
> some concerns re. JFFS and powercycling and as I understand the JFFS2 is
> more robust. Another option would be to make JFFS more robust but I
> assume that that might be an even bigger challenge.
True. JFFS2 _is_ the result of making JFFS more robust. :)
What chance of using 2.4 uClinux?
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-24 7:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-24 6:25 JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel? Arne Jonsson
2003-02-24 6:55 ` David Woodhouse
2003-02-24 7:08 ` Arne Jonsson
2003-02-24 7:17 ` David Woodhouse
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox