From manningc2@actrix.gen.nz Sun Mar 02 19:50:37 2008 Received: from smtp.firstline.co.nz ([203.167.210.162] helo=firstline.co.nz) by stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JVuCW-0000ZL-I9 for yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:50:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 3430 invoked by uid 453); 2 Mar 2008 19:50:17 -0000 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on firstline.co.nz Received: from Unknown (HELO [192.168.0.29]) (10.14.0.253) by firstline.co.nz (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:50:17 +1300 From: Charles Manning To: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:50:14 +1300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <404270050.16970@ustc.edu.cn> In-Reply-To: <404270050.16970@ustc.edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803030850.14071.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 203.167.210.162 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.2.3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:23:22 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk) Cc: "shizheng@Alumni" Subject: Re: [Yaffs] [Yaffs2]Tnode tallness and the maximum chunk id X-BeenThere: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of YAFFS NAND flash filesystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:50:37 -0000 On Friday 29 February 2008 20:26:08 shizheng@Alumni wrote: > Hi, > The YAFFS_TNODES_MAX_LEVEL is 6, so I think the maximum chunk id occupies > 3*6+4=22 bits, which evaluates 0x003fffff. But YAFFS_MAX_CHUNK_ID is > defined as 0x000fffff, why? Tnode size is not the only limiting factor in the size of the chunkId. There are also the values that are stored in the tags. These limits can be altered without too much effort to make larger file systems. > > I guess maybe it gets a little mess with chunk group size which is > usually 2^2. > Or do I mistake anything? > > best wishes, shizheng > > > _______________________________________________ > yaffs mailing list > yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk > http://lists.aleph1.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yaffs