On 6/22/05, Charles Manning wrote: > There is nothing technically wrong with using block zero from a memory/NAND > perspective. At the end of the day, file system integrity is governed by the > performance of the worst block and not the best block. Block zero is only > guaranteed good at the time of shipping and can go bad with time. Also, > many/most systems use block zero for some other purpose (eg. boot data or bad > block marker). Thus, relying on chunk zero being good is pointless. Is it that the code in the block 0 can be executed in place for booting? We may consider supporting partitions. As to bad block marker issue, using a fixed block for that purpose is against wear leveling and not reliable. Bad block information always can be gathered through oob area. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/