Hi Albert,
> Le 17/11/2010 19:01, Quotient Remainder a écrit :
>> Ar Céad, 2010-11-17 ag 17:25 +0100, scríobh Albert ARIBAUD:
>>
>>> Do you mean that, in Linux, you do a power cycle without (syncing and)
>>> unmounting a file system that will be critical to properly booting later
>>> on? If so, wh
Le 17/11/2010 19:01, Quotient Remainder a écrit :
> Ar Céad, 2010-11-17 ag 17:25 +0100, scríobh Albert ARIBAUD:
>
>> Do you mean that, in Linux, you do a power cycle without (syncing and)
>> unmounting a file system that will be critical to properly booting later
>> on? If so, what is the rationale
Ar Céad, 2010-11-17 ag 17:25 +0100, scríobh Albert ARIBAUD:
> Do you mean that, in Linux, you do a power cycle without (syncing and)
> unmounting a file system that will be critical to properly booting later
> on? If so, what is the rationale behind this too-quick power cycle?
Yes, I'm testing
Le 17/11/2010 17:01, Quotient Remainder a écrit :
> Ar Aoine, 2010-09-17 ag 12:44 -0400, scríobh Eric Cooper:
>> But I just discovered that it has a fatal disadvantage. My device
>> can't reboot when the ubifs is corrupted, which happened today after a
>> power failure:
>>
>> UBIFS: recovery
Ar Aoine, 2010-09-17 ag 12:44 -0400, scríobh Eric Cooper:
> But I just discovered that it has a fatal disadvantage. My device
> can't reboot when the ubifs is corrupted, which happened today after a
> power failure:
>
> UBIFS: recovery needed
> Error reading superblock on volume 'ubi:root
I've configured my device (a Seagate DockStar) with just two NAND
flash partitions -- one for u-boot and one for the Linux rootfs.
This has some nice advantages: it maximizes the available flash space,
and allows the Linux distribution's own tools to install new kernel
and initramfs files without
6 matches
Mail list logo
