From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [84.204.75.166] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EpTut-0005OK-Al for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:07:55 -0500 Message-ID: <43AADD42.8080708@yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:14 +0300 From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Boyer References: <43AAD478.4050205@yandex.ru> <625fc13d0512220902t5031dcb8w5a0af9c6f75c90bf@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <625fc13d0512220902t5031dcb8w5a0af9c6f75c90bf@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Nikhil Subject: Re: CLEANMARKER!! List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > It's an optimization of mkfs.jffs2. If it didn't write those > cleanmarkers in the image, JFFS2 would scan flash, find free > eraseblocks, and go erase them again since the cleanmarker is missing. > With the cleanmarkers there, the erase of already erased blocks is > omitted. Well, this is for empty eraseblocks. Those with data could be devoid of cleanmarkers. -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityutskiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.