From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17z1Lw-0008Ho-00 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:53:16 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <200210082238.02460.haensse@swissembedded.com> References: <200210082238.02460.haensse@swissembedded.com> To: daniel.haensse@alumni.ethz.ch Cc: JFFS developer mailing list , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Eraseall crash on uclinux 2.4.19 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:53:12 +0100 Message-ID: <6757.1034110392@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: daniel.haensse@alumni.ethz.ch said: > on line 142 a eraseall /dev/mtd0 stops with a failed 11 (EAGAIN) > Any idea what might be wrong? Er, no -- I can't see how the erase function can return EAGAIN. Where's it coming from? > Another question: Can we ignore the AMD_BOOTLOC_BUG and switch this > off? Is this also Fujitsu related? I think you can ignore it. It's only valid for AMD parts, I believe. Other people managed to get a simple table correct. Someone was going to clean that up. -- dwmw2