On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 12:31:27AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 08:05:27AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Are the openmoko developers to time contrained to send it upstead > > > > You hit the nail right on its head :-( Well, I haven't even had time > > to help with OpenMoko mainline for some months now, so it's really > > just Harald who's in charge of that, and he's in charge of quite a > > lot of things ... > > So do you guys need some help dealing with rmk's patch queue? This > kind of reshuffling patches and responding to comments is what I do > for relaxing when I'm too tired of real work :)
yes, please. It would be really great to have you pushing this. If we at some point find somebody who can do somilar for u-boot, we really have one big thing less to worry about. > I can't comment too much on the actual ondisk format because I'm not > an expert on flash memory, but many revisions it went through for > different technologies are at least a little alarming. Also the > ondisk layout for hardlinks doesn't look to very encouraging. As > far as the actual code is concerned it's a complete nightmare. The > read/write path is buggy in more ways than it has lines of code and > needs to be ripped out and replaced by new code entirely, with much > more use of existing standard linux functionality. It's not that > dramatic on the namespace side, but that code has quite a lot bugs > in the software design aswell as layering problems. Add to that > "features" like variant symlinks that have been NACKed multiple > times because they're better implemented using bind mounts and you > get a really nice cocktail ;-) well, I'm not arguing that yaffs2 is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but with LogFS in a too early stage, and JFFS2 being suboptimal for large-page-nand, combined with the performance issues of JFFS2, there is little other choice we have for now. Also, I've never argued that yaffs2 should go mainline. > > We use it on HXD8, which has tons of NAND. > > How large is 'tons'? If it's really going into the Gigabyte range > I'd suggest looking at logfs, otherwise a recent jffs2 with the > scalability improvements from olpc should be fine. yes, tons: think about 3GB or more raw nand :) and with the statements from Joern about Logfs' early status, it's really not an option for us yet. With the next generation of devices I'm more than happy to re-visit. -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://openmoko.org/ ============================================================================ Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone
