From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CJsNS-0002Rq-Vo for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:42:09 -0400 Received: from [80.176.67.250] (helo=baydel.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CJtJk-0001B2-Gg for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:42:20 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" From: Simon Haynes To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:22:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Subject: Bad Blocks On JFFS2/NAND Reply-To: simon@baydel.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I have experienced a problem in which a JFF2 filesystem on NAND became full. This is a root file system and constant writes to a logfile filled the filesystem. On investigation it was found that the NAND device now had hundreds of bad blocks. I started to investigate this and found that JFFS2 was announcing Newly-erased block contained word 0x1985e002 at offset 0x020f7e00 Messages which result in my mtd/jffs2 code marking the block bad. What I find strange is that a subsequent scan list the new block at a different 16k offset when the device erasesize is 16k, in this case 0x020f0000. Is that because my device is 128Mb and JFFS2 is using this 'virtual erase size' of 32k ? I have observed this now on several different NAND devices and it seems to be more prominent while performing small writes. I am currently trying to work out if the erase is not completing, or this is the wrong block or something else. I was wondering if anyone has seen something similar Cheers Simon.