From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx-00.sil.at ([62.116.68.196]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22 #5 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1A7ygV-0004Cg-5R for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:56:03 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:53:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Flaschberger To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1065764780.30987.333.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <1065764780.30987.333.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org cc: jffs-dev@axis.com Subject: Re: kmalloc jffs2_do_mount_fs List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi > 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. i use 16k erase block size but the jffs2 partition is