Is JFFS a full featured filesystem?

[Philipp Rumpf]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 01:13:34PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Markus Thiesmeyer wrote:
> Well, i haven't had time to work on jffs lately so i haven't talked much
> about this... But, as currently implemented, writing to mmaped jffs files
> is serioiusly broken. Of the address space operations only readpage is

Note this is for 2.2 only - 2.4 properly handles filesystems that cannot be
modified through mmaps.  I think it might be a good idea to do:

diff -ur mtd/fs/jffs/inode-v22.c mtd-prumpf/fs/jffs/inode-v22.c
--- mtd/fs/jffs/inode-v22.c	Sun Jul 30 18:07:16 2000
+++ mtd-prumpf/fs/jffs/inode-v22.c	Wed Aug  2 09:39:05 2000
@@ -1562,13 +1562,21 @@
 	return 0;
 } /* jffs_ioctl()  */
 
+/* Don't allow shared writable mmaps - we don't handle them correctly */
+static int jffs_file_mmap(struct file * file, struct vm_area_struct * vma)
+{
+	if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYWRITE))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	return generic_file_mmap(file, vma);
+} /* jffs_file_mmap() */
 
 static struct file_operations jffs_file_operations =
 {
 	read:  generic_file_read,    /* read */
 	write: jffs_file_write,      /* write */
 	ioctl: jffs_ioctl,           /* ioctl */
-	mmap:  generic_file_mmap,    /* mmap */
+	mmap:  jffs_file_mmap,       /* mmap */
 };
 

[untested, as I don't have a local 2.2 tree]
 
> implemented. To get a correcly working mmap implementation writepage and
> prepare_write_page (or whatever it's called, don't have source handy right
> now) should be implemented. This could cause consistancy problems though,

But do we _want_ one ?  It basically means files will be modified 4 KB at a
time on most systems - I think the 2.4 behaviour is nicer.

> because we're not using the (possibly modified) mmaped data when writing
> directly to a file, we also in some way guarantee that all writes are
> done to the log in the correct order. It will also be an inefficient way

I am planning on breaking up my jffs compression patch into several patches
later today - writing through the page cache is the right thing for us to
do, even if we want to keep the fully synchronous behaviour.

> All this, and the fact that the missing needed mutex around the writing to
> the log makes the jffs filesystem quite seriously borked. It can be used,

OTOH, we don't really need a complicated locking structure - the vfs takes
care of managing per-inode mutexes and all we need to do is lock actual
physical flash accesses against each other;  things are slightly more
complicated for asynchronous writes (basically the code to do the physical
write would look somewhat like this:

	if (inode_has_modifications(inode)) {
		down(&inode->i_sem);
		compress, allocate, write;
		up(&inode->i_sem);
	}
), though the advantages are very interesting.

	Philipp Rumpf


To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo at infradead.org