[PATCH]fs/jffs2/wbuf.c: add compatibility support for OOB data block

[Ferenc Havasi]

Jörn Engel wrote:

>Yes.  The cumulation of erase blocks is an ugly ugly hack.  The fact
>that vmalloc() of more than 128M will always fail doesn't imply that
>vmalloc() of less will always succeed.  On i386 with 1GiB of ram and a
>single kernel module loaded, the chance has already dropped to 0.
>
>  
>
I agree.

But If I am right we use kmalloc, and its limit is 128K. Why don't we 
use vmalloc() instead there?

Ferenc