if at sil.at
Fri Oct 10 10:53:29 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.
i use 16k erase block size but the jffs2 partition is
More information about the linux-mtd