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 1FHk8C-0008Mf-3n for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:06:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4411A3D9.6050505@yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:45 +0300 From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Boyer References: <20060310135431.62022.qmail@web86903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <625fc13d0603100735o37c96bcfl78b213eab41b5e54@mail.gmail.com> <44119E8F.1000504@yandex.ru> <625fc13d0603100753r33fde8b8n3b9ff39f24b37b72@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <625fc13d0603100753r33fde8b8n3b9ff39f24b37b72@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Adam Ward Subject: Re: Read only forced on jffs2 by mtd layer? List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > Sorta. If there isn't enough physical space to write nodes out, then > you can't really have a writeable filesystem. It'll actually just > return -ENOSPC for everything instead of -EROFS, but the effect is the > same. I mean, if I ask to mount read-write, but end-up with RO, this is bad. Shouldn't I explicitely request RO mount? > Take a look at jffs2_calc_trigger_levels in build.c. > c->resv_blocks_deletion is the number of blocks needed to delete > something. c->resv_blocks_write is the number of blocks needed to > write something. Ok, but where is the code that switches it to RO mode in case of lack of eraseblocks? -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityutskiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.