From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fmr15.intel.com ([192.55.52.69] helo=fmsfmr005.fm.intel.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DiqOu-0006oD-9z for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:11:05 -0400 Message-ID: <42B14245.7070500@intel.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:11:33 +0800 From: zhao MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" References: <8126E4F969BA254AB43EA03C59F44E840263CEAE@pdsmsx404> <1118827313.22181.52.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <42B11054.4020509@intel.com> <42B12463.4060106@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <42B12463.4060106@yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse Subject: Re: jffs2 corrupt rarely, how to fix it? List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > zhao wrote: > >> Would you please give me some information about the difference >> between the JFFS2 in 2.4 kernel and the one in 2.6 kernel? > > > One substantial difference is the absence of the lookup() inode operation > in <= 2.4.19 kernels. > > AFAIK, there are no major problems porting recent MTD trees to "not > very ancient" 2.4 kernels, where "not very ancient" is, I presume, > > 2.4.20. But I didn't try (thank goodness) :-) People just don't want > to deal with old stuff anymore. > In fact, we were using JFFS2 on kernel 2.4.10....... And we encountered some problems(e.g. jffs2 corrupt rarely), it seems that I need to back-port JFFS2 in latest 2.4 kernel(2.4.31, right?) to 2.4.10 :( if they are not willing to upgrade to latest 2.4 kernel in the product. Thanks, Forrest