From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1160 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2009 03:55:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1152 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2009 03:55:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:55:33 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id n9F3tV418258; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:55:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from [172.31.1.126] (neelix.jifvik.org [172.31.1.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D56B3FEB; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:55:30 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4AD69D31.4020202@jifvik.org> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:55:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Lambrecht?= Cc: eCos developers , Deroo Stijn Subject: Re: NAND technical review References: <4ACB4B58.2040804@ecoscentric.com> <4ACC61F0.3020303@televic.com> <4AD3E92E.5020301@jifvik.org> <4AD41FA6.2020600@televic.com> In-Reply-To: <4AD41FA6.2020600@televic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Jürgen Lambrecht wrote: > Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> Jürgen Lambrecht wrote: [snip] >>> We have it very well tested, amongst others [snip] >> >> That's extremely useful to know, thanks! But a couple of further >> questions >> on this: (1) Did any bad blocks show up at any point? (2) Were you >> using a bad >> block table? (3) Presumably there were factory-marked bad blocks on some? > > (3) Yes, there are almost always factory-marked bad blocks. > (2) yes > (1)Yes, certainly! We have from time to time bad blocks, and they are > handled correctly. That's great to know, especially (1), thanks! Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine