From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.120.26.98] (helo=phonos.telos-systems.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 15hxkX-0004SF-00 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:31:37 +0100 Message-id: Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:20:02 -0400 Subject: trouble compiling mkfs.jffs2 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org From: "James Schettine" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: JFFS2 is working great on my embedded arm processor. (Great work everybody!) I have started out with a pre-built root image I grabbed from others working on handhelds, and they have set the erase block size to 0x40000 and mine needs to be 0x20000. Question #1... does this only affect the overhead/optimal use or will I actually run into problems if I run this over a long period. In order to re-flash my embedded root filesystem with the correct erase block size, I have transferred all files to my desktop system (an older Debian 2.2) and read up on using mkfs.jffs2. I couldn't find a pre-compiled binary in a quick and lazy search so I grabbed the cvs tree, cd util, and make mkfs.jffs2. (did the configure thing too, but that didn't fix this problem.) I'm getting problems with size_t undefined in linux/string.h (I can't believe it doesn't include what it needs !), and patching around that I get conflicts between linux/string.h and asm/string.h Then it struck me that as a user-land utility application, we shouldn't need to get TOO intimate with the kernel. After all, I am cross-building my filesystem. The more you ask about the host kernel, the more wrong you'll be when you get to the target kernel. Has anyone else had these troubles/got a work-around. It's not a good time to be upgrading this particular system right now.