kmalloc jffs2_do_mount_fs

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at
Fri Oct 10 01:46:21 EDT 2003

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.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list