Hi Baidu,
Hi, Detlev :
2011/4/29 Detlev Zundel dzu@denx.de:
Hi,
1/ Get the latest DIRENT For example, if you create a file in linux jffs2 which config summary support, then you delete the file , you will not see the file in linux jffs2. But you can also see this file in uboot after you reset the system. That is because all the nodes in jffs2 which config summary will not be marked as obsolete. The deleted file's DIRENT node will be seen in uboot. So what we need to do is to get the latest DIRENT whose ino in DIRENT is 0.
Sorry, but I do not understand that last sentence. Can you clarify this please?
This is just give an example. If you create a file, then you DELETE it in jffs2 . In previous code where you do NOT config SUMMARY. There will be two DIRENT nodes in flash. One is obsoleted where the ino=1, another one is valid where the ino=0. When we type "ls " command, the file will NOT shown because uboot will not show the DIRENT where the ino =0 which means the file is deleted. But when we config SUMMARY in kernel jffs2. The two DIRENTs are BOTH valid. When we type "ls " command, the file will be SHOWN because we find the first DIRENT where the ino is not 0. The result is obviously wrong.
The more I read the jffs2 code, the more I do not understand. In my eyes, the summary feature should just be a shortcut for not scanning the whole eraseblock, but I fail to see substantial differences. Specifically, I do not understand why your example should be a problem. So maybe you should correct me where I'm wrong:
- we create a file in Linux. So we get a dirent with versino = 1, ino <> 0. This will be in the summary of its jeb.
- we delete the file in Linux. So we get a dirent with version = 2 and ino = 0. If this is not in the same jeb than the previous dirent, then it will be in the summary of its own jeb, otherwise it will obsolete the old dirent in the summary directly.
Is this correct?
Now when U-Boot reads the summaries, it will enter both dirents into its list and 'jffs2_1pass_find_inode' will find the dirent with version 2 having ino = 0. So the file should not be listed.
Where is this going wrong?
I'm really trying hard to understand the changes, but to comment on them sensibly, I have to understand what is going on...
So what we need to do is to find the DIRENT with the latest version. In this example ,the second DIRENT has highest version which means latest. And the ino is 0. Then we will not show it.
Yes, I think I understand what you try to do, I explicitely said that I did not understand this sentence:
"So what we need to do is to get the latest DIRENT whose ino in DIRENT is 0"
What does this mean? Do you mean "Before we list any DIRENT, we first check if we find a later DIRENT which has ino = 0. If this is the case, then the file has been erased and should not be displayed"?
Alas as I wrote above, I do not understand why this is not handled already by current code.
Than we will not see this file in uboot which is what we want.
2/ Add CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS definition,if we config jffs2 summary in uboot. All the inodes of a file will not marked as obsolete, if they do not sort in the list struct b_node *, the latest data in inode may be overwritten by the older one.
Also I have trouble making sense of this text.
There may have many data inode in jfffs2 which represent the same range in the same file, when we use SUMMARY. They are overlapped. But only the data inode which has the latest version represent the actual data. So we need to sort the data inode, where we make the latest data inode after the obsoleted data inode. Then the latest data inode will not be overwritten when use use "fsload" command in uboot.
Sorry, I am still not understanding this. Can you please state explicitely where you think there is an error and how your changes fix the error?
Using summary or not, we can have multiple fragments for a file in a JFFS2 filesystem and the code seems to handle this fine. The summary should only be a optimization for the scanning phase, it should not behave differently. This is why I want to understand this. SUMMARY and SORT_FRAGMENTS should be orthogonal. If they are not, then we most certainly have another problem.
[...]
diff --git a/include/jffs2/jffs2.h b/include/jffs2/jffs2.h index 651f94c..5b006c0 100644 --- a/include/jffs2/jffs2.h +++ b/include/jffs2/jffs2.h @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ #include <asm/types.h> #include <jffs2/load_kernel.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_JFFS2_SUMMARY +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS +/* +we should define CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS,if +CONFIG_JFFS2_SUMMARY is enabled. +*/ +#define CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS +#endif +#endif
#define JFFS2_SUPER_MAGIC 0x72b6
/* Values we may expect to find in the 'magic' field */
If JFFS2_SUMMARY _needs_ SORT_FRAGMENTS, then we should say so, i.e.
/* CONFIG_JFFS2_SUMMARY will not work correctly without CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS */
Alas, technically I do not understand why that is the case. So I invite people more knowledgeable with JFFS2 to comment on this bit.
[time passes]
Wait a minute - I tried to understand the code here - is it possible that SORT_FRAGMENTS really is needed _whenever_ we have a read-write JFFS2 filesystem? I.e. even without summary support we will have problems without SORT_FRAGMENTS?
No, SORT_FRAGMENTS only need when SUMMARY is configed. Because all the nodes including the DIRENT inode and DATA inode are all valid. So we need to sort them.
What? On JFFS2 we can always have multiple DIRENT and DATA nodes and we always have to find the highest version.
As far as I can see the only effect of using SORT_FRAGMENTS is that the compare function sets ino of known obsolete dirents to 0 as a _side effect_. This is rather nasty coding practice and but completely independent of Linux and SUMMARY.
Wow, if this is true, then the option is certainly named completely misleading and most boards using JFFS2 actually use incorrect code....
The previous code works well when SUMAMRY is not configed. We have plenty of board use JFFS2 in uboot where the SUMMARY is not configed. But the uboot does not work when sumamry configed, so I submit these patches to fix this issue.
Ok, I was overly pessimistic interpreting this comment:
* The fragment sorting feature must be enabled by CONFIG_SYS_JFFS2_SORT_FRAGMENTS. * Sorting is done while adding fragments to the lists, which is more or less a * bubble sort. This takes a lot of time, and is most probably not an issue if * the boot filesystem is always mounted readonly. * * You should define it if the boot filesystem is mounted writable, and updates * to the boot files are done by copying files to that filesystem.
We should define this option by default and only let people undefine it if they know exactly what they do.
We do not need to define SORT when we do not use SUMMARY. But we mush use SORT when we use SUMMARY.
I am not convinced. Both options should be orthogonal.
This patch is most importent in the 7 patches.
The jffs2 inode is not easy to understand. And I think the comments in the patch is enough if the reader know about jffs2. Too many commants is not need just as previous code did not give us too many comments. In kernel there are even little comment to explain how the jffs2 works.
You must be joking. Either you can explain why your changes are indeed the correct thing or the community will not consider them. It is that easy.
Best wishes Detlev