not enough blocks for JFFS?
joern at wohnheim.fh-wedel.de
Tue Mar 25 07:33:28 EST 2003
On Mon, 24 March 2003 19:21:47 -0700, Russ Dill wrote:
> Your goals would be better served by a user-space solution from what I
> can tell. Not only would there be less code, but that code would be
> compressed in cramfs. I'm able to use 1 boot block for blob, another for
> static configuration, and the remaining two for configuration data saved
> in this way.
Compressed in cramfs is the point where I really disagree. iirc,
cramfs images are a bit larger than jffs2 images. So if you want a
read-only rootfs, jffs2 might be a better idea, already.
Especially, if you need some if the jffs2 functionality again to save
configuration data. I doubt that you would save a lot with userspace
code + cramfs versus jffs2 both in flash and in memory consumption.
Time might be spend better in improving jffs2, than in reimplementing
a subset of jffs2's functionality each time.
Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent.
-- Sun Tzu
More information about the linux-mtd