login
Header Space

 
 

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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, <penberg@...>, <ext-adrian.hunter@...>, <jwboyer@...>, <w@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 10:22 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, 4:02 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)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Jörn, (Wed Apr 2, 10:22 am)
speck-geostationary