running out of space dd'ing JFFS2 image to /dev/mtdblock/0

[Artem B. Bityuckiy]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> > >   ah, excellent, but while we're on the subject of parameters, is
> > > there any hope of getting some consistency in the way parameter values
> > > are supplied across the world of JFFS2 and MTD?
> > >
> > >   to wit, with "mkfs.jffs2":
> > >
> > > -p, --pad[=SIZE] Pad output to SIZE bytes with 0xFF. If SIZE is
> > >                         not specified, the output is padded to the
> > > 			end of the final erase block
> > >
> > >
> > >   so, apparently, you supply an *exact* byte size here (it's not
> > > mentioned if you can use KiB or MiB prefixes).
> > >
> > >   with "--pagesize" and "--eraseblock", the help states that you *can*
> > > use those prefixes.
> > >
> > >   if you check what you can do with the mtdram module, you get:
> > >
> > > $ modinfo mtdram
> > > filename:
> > > /lib/modules/2.6.10-1.741_FC3/kernel/drivers/mtd/devices/mtdram.ko
> > > parm:           total_size:Total device size in KiB
> > > parm:           erase_size:Device erase block size in KiB
> > >
> > >   so the values here are ... what?  strictly in KiB?  so i'd supply
> > > something like
> > >
> > >   total_size=16384
> > >
> > > to specify 16M?  it's just a bit painful to jump around between the
> > > various utilities and have to keep remembering what the standard is.
> > >
> > >   thoughts?
> 
> > My thought that if you sent patch that fixes this inconsistency it
> > will be nice. :-)
> 
> first, it's necessary to define a simple standard, so what about
> something like the following?  any size values in *any* of the
> JFFS2-related programs shall be in one of the following formats:
> 
>   ###		(interpreted as bytes)
>   ###KiB	(obvious)
>   ###MiB	(obvious)
> 
> at the moment, this is not being followed.  for instance, mkfs.jffs2
> has the --pad=SIZE option, where a simple number is treated as KiB.
> anyway, you get idea -- it's pretty confusing.
> 
> so, do we at least have some agreement on a standard?  which would
> hold across *all* programs and modules?  i'm not even going to
> *consider* looking at patches to do this unless i'm convinced everyone
> agrees, since changes like this will clearly force people to change
> the way they do some things.  and i know how fond some people are of
> *that* idea. :-)
> 
> rday
> 
> 
IMO, JFFS2 utilities should support KiB/MiB on etiher all options or for 
no option. Agree that this is minor inconsistency when one option supports 
KiB but anothed does not.

About modules, don't know. IMO, just bytes is enough. Ony state this 
explicitly in module info.

--
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.