From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.imc-berlin.de ([217.110.46.186]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DxN1m-0003rR-KE for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:51:22 -0400 Received: from mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de [10.0.0.19]) by mail.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574F12F016 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:59:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9943512139 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:51:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.2.10] (scholz.berlin.imc-berlin.de [10.0.2.10]) by mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D408411CAA for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:51:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42E6159D.10302@imc-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:51:09 +0200 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <20050722115939.GA941@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42E0E2C8.7090304@yandex.ru> <42E5E816.5090500@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050726074440.GB15903@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42E5ECE5.4010901@inf.u-szeged.hu> <42E5F474.7020003@imc-berlin.de> <20050726093624.GE15903@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42E60A81.7070508@inf.u-szeged.hu> In-Reply-To: <42E60A81.7070508@inf.u-szeged.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PATCH]fs/jffs2/wbuf.c: add compatibility support for OOB data block List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ferenc Havasi wrote: > Jörn Engel wrote: > >>> Is there any chance to extend the code so that EBS will use the first >>> mount to generate a summary instead having the need of a user space >>> tool to create an JFFS2 image with EBS? >> >> >> That's a lot of code for something inherently inefficient. EBS should >> create summaries for *new* blocks that are written, sure. But if you >> try to GC every single block without summary, your mount time will be >> well beyond it would have been without EBS. > > > I agree. It would be technically difficult to implement and would make > the first mount time very-very long. Ah. I see. I did not know it would cretae that much hassle. But then: what is the status of CS? For NOR? -- Steven