From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eos.fwall.u-szeged.hu ([160.114.120.248]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CMORZ-0007aT-Q4 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:20:47 -0400 Message-ID: <417E25EE.40109@inf.u-szeged.hu> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:24:46 +0200 From: Ferenc Havasi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jarkko Lavinen References: <41767593.9030004@inf.u-szeged.hu> <1098365059.13633.1257.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <41781683.3020602@inf.u-szeged.hu> <4179009D.8010409@oktetlabs.ru> <20041026092928.GA23914@angel.research.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <20041026092928.GA23914@angel.research.nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext Artem Bityuckiy , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse , jffs-dev@axis.com Subject: Re: JFFS2 mount time List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Jarkko, > If dentries were stored just as they are (unstripped and uncompressed) > in the summary, the summary size would grow by 50% to about 3% of the > whole image size. Thanks, good to know it. Did you got ECC/CRC errors? The most interest test for me whould be to test the new (sumtool) image with the original kernel (because the summary nodes are compatibles it should work), and see if there is ECC/CRC errors or not. Bye, Ferenc