From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [213.170.72.194] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CERHe-000575-Ay for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:45:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4161379C.3070109@oktetlabs.ru> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:44:28 +0400 From: Artem Bityuckiy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <416122A1.4060302@oktetlabs.ru> <1096885344.30942.559.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1096885344.30942.559.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: inode checkpoints List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 14:14 +0400, Artem Bityuckiy wrote: > >>Wha do JFFS2 folks think about the idea? > > > It seems to make a lot of sense. We could write such checkpoints only on > files which are large enough to warrant them, and we could tune the > frequency of such checkpoints. > > Of course as with many cute ideas it may turn out to be utterly > impractical when we implement it :) It does look sane though. > It should also be noted, that the checkpoints support will be added under the "#ifdef CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_NAND" directive since it only makes sence for the NAND flash devices... -- Best regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy Oktet Labs (St. Petersburg), Software Engineer. +78124286709 (office) +79112449030 (mobile) E-mail: dedekind@oktetlabs.ru, web: http://www.oktetlabs.ru