Re: JFFS3 superblock search

Jörn Engel
2005-06-06T14:17:21Z

On Mon, 6 June 2005 18:10:37 +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
>
> > There are valid reasons to use 512 byte blocks instead. Most likely I
> > will do just that for logfs, just as a hint. Therefore, even with 8
> > byte keys, you'd be down to 32^4 or about a million. Prepare for more
> > levels.
>
> May be. Should think more.
> If you're going to make use of the Tree-based approach, then why don't
> you rename logfs to JFFS3 and we'll join :-) ?

I won't make use of a single tree. And naming is jffs3 would just be
gross. Image the name correctly describing the design? Eew! ;)

Jörn

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare