Re: kmalloc jffs2_do_mount_fs
David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.drivers.mtd,gmane.linux.file-systems.jffs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 05:13 +0200, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > but why doe you not apply it to the source or warn because of this > "jffs2" problem??? Partly because I'm unconvinced that we want to actually _use_ such a small erasesize. It means you split far more page writes into two nodes to avoid crossing block boundaries, and hence waste space. I suspect the main reason Thomas objected to my original 'min 64KiB' was because of the 5-erase-block threshold. Since I've just wound that threshold _up_ on NAND because and it's also based in part on nr_blocks now, we could perhaps rethink the minimum erasesize. I didn't manage to tie him down on #mtd yesterday though. -- dwmw2 ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/