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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jörn
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 7:22 am

On Wed, 2 April 2008 16:17:25 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:

Could have been soft errors.  Heaven knows how those devices report
uncorrectable errors, but claiming the block to be bad is a good guess.
Once blocks with uncorrectable errors are rewritten (the physical
blocks, not what the device reports), they are perfectly usable again.

Jörn

-- 
They laughed at Galileo.  They laughed at Copernicus.  They laughed at
Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- unknown
--
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, 1:02 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file ..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Tue Apr 1, 2:39 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file ..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Wed Apr 2, 7:17 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file ..., Jörn, (Wed Apr 2, 7:22 am)