Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Willy Tarreau <w@...>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Andi Kleen <andi@...>, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, <penberg@...>, Jörn Engel <joern@...>, <ext-adrian.hunter@...>, <jwboyer@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 3:17 am

Willy Tarreau wrote:

Sure, I know about this problem. My point was that in this case it is wiser
to use bare flash and put JFFS2 on it, instead of using this black box
MMC/etc and then put JFFS2 on it.


OK. Fair enough. Although stuff exists, but this does not necessarily mean
this a good design :-)

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system), Tomasz Chmielewski, (Tue Apr 1, 4:02 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Artem Bityutskiy, (Wed Apr 2, 3:17 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Tue Apr 1, 5:39 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Wed Apr 2, 10:17 am)