Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS
From: Matt Mackall
Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 20:09:07 EST
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:07PM +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>+config SQUASHFS_1_0_COMPATIBILITY
> >>+ bool "Include support for mounting SquashFS 1.x filesystems"
> >How common are these? It would be nice not to bring in legacy code.
> Squashfs 1.x filesystems were the previous file format. Embedded
> systems tend to be conservative, and so there are quite a few systems
> out there using 1.x filesystems. I've also heard of quite a few cases
> where Squashfs is used as an archival filesystem, and so there's
> probably quite a few 1.x fileystems around for this reason.
> One issue which I'm aware of here is deciding what getting squashfs
> support into the kernel is meant to answer. I'm asking for it to be put
> into the kernel because developers out there are asking me to put it in
> the kernel - because they don't want to continually (re)patch their kernels.
My suggestion would be to break out the 1.x code into a separate patch
and encourage everyone to convert to 2.x. No one has ever created a
1.x fs with the expectation it'll work on an unpatched kernel, so they
don't lose anything. And no one should be creating such any more, right?
> >>+ unsigned int s_major:16;
> >>+ unsigned int s_minor:16;
> >What's going on here? s_minor's not big enough for modern minor
> What is the modern size then?
Minors are 22 bits, majors are 10. May grow to 32 each at some point.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/