JFFS - ready for submission into 2.[34]?

Jason Gunthorpe jgg at deltatee.com
Fri Jun 9 01:42:22 EDT 2000

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Bjorn Wesen wrote:

> It's because when you build an embedded product, you typically don't build
> it on the target, so you have no way of mounting and populating it. You
> should see mkfs.jffs more as a "filesystem cross compiler" than an mkfs
> tool (as Finn wrote, there is no need for a "real" mkfs.jffs - an empty
> flash will do).

Wow, that is really great. Right now with the FFS2 stuff I am using we
have to have a FFS2 module installed on the host to populate the file
system image, it kind of sucks in alot of ways.

> One drawback code-wise is that there is redundancy between code in
> mkfs.jffs and in the filesystem itself of course. But the on-flash
> node-structure of JFFS is so simple that mkfs.jffs is simple enough to
> warrant it I think.

Is the on flash structure documented? I need to write a simple read-only
driver for bootloaders. (see the boot stuff in MTD CVS, if it is still the
things I cooked up..)

There is a very good chance I am going to ditch FFS2 and just use JFFS for
all our products, I don't really like writing filesystem code and JFFS
sounds all round better than what MS came up wtih [FFS2 has inherent
consistency issues] :>


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

More information about the linux-mtd mailing list