1

I’m trying to mount jffs2 rootfs. When the fs is mounted the following warning is displayed:

Jffs2: Node totlen on flash (0xffffffff) != totlen from node ref

This warning did not occur when I used ramfs as rootfs, and jffs2 rootfs was mounted manually.

This warning occurs when jffs2 tries to mark a node as obsolete. In any other sense, the fs appears operable, and I’m able to create files and delete files. Regardless, every so often the warning is displayed and aside from being annoyed by it, I fear it will eventually lead to the corruption of the fs.

Buildroot configuration:
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2=y
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2_FLASH_64=y
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2_EBSIZE=0x10000
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2_PAD=y
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2_PADSIZE=0x00B00000
BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_JFFS2_LE=y

Linux configuration:
CONFIG_JFFS2_FS=y
CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_DEBUG=0
CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_WRITEBUFFER=y
CONFIG_JFFS2_ZLIB=y
CONFIG_JFFS2_RTIME=y

I found that when I decreased the partition size to 0x450000 this warning was abolished, however, there was not enough space for /etc/dropbear, and I wasn’t able to find a “sweet-spot” where there is enough space and no warning.

I tried various padding sizes, and removing padding altogether, but to no avail.

I've built some rootfs.jffs2 images with varying configurations, but none solved the issue.

I looked at hexdumps of the rootfs.jffs2 image, an empty jffs2 partition and the created /dev/mtdblock3--but have found nothing out of the ordinary.

stdcall
  • 27,613
  • 18
  • 81
  • 125
Okarin
  • 29
  • 3
  • How is this question about kernel programming (you are using `linux-kernel` tag)? And how is it about programming at all? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any relation here. Maybe it's more appropriate for [Super User](http://superuser.com/) site? – Sam Protsenko Jun 26 '16 at 18:57
  • @SamProtsenko, as you can see from the question, the author is using `buildroot`, and he enabled specific kernel configuration relevant to `jffs2`. related to programming ? well this surely some kind of board-bringup of some sort. – stdcall Jun 27 '16 at 05:25
  • Are you sure your eraseblock size of 64KB? That's somewhat unusual. Also, there shouldn't be any reason not to keep the padsize to 0 so that it just pads up to the next eraseblock boundary. – Arnout Jun 27 '16 at 19:35

0 Answers0