JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?

JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?

[Arne Jonsson]

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

JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?

[David Woodhouse]

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

JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?

[Arne Jonsson]

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

JFFS2 for 2.0 kernel?

[David Woodhouse]

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