Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS
From: Mws
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 02:08:52 EST
Pavel Machek wrote:
-snip-
So we are replacing severely-limited cramfs with also-limited
squashfs...
I think that's rather unfair, Squashfs is significantly better than
cramfs. The main aim of Squashfs has been to achieve the best
Yes, it *is* rather unfair. Sorry about that. But having 2 different
limited compressed filesystems in kernel does not seem good to me.
what do you need e.g. reiserfs 4 for? or jfs? or xfs? does not ext2/3
the journalling job also?
is there really a need for cifs and samba and ncpfs and nfs v3 and nfs
v4? why?
-snip-
Well, out-of-tree maintainenance takes lot of time, too, so by keeping
limited code out-of-kernel we provide quite good incentive to make
those limits go away.
Perhaps squashfs is good enough improvement over cramfs... But I'd
like those 4Gb limits to go away.
Pavel
we all do - but who does really care about stupid 4Gb limits on embedded
systems with e.g.
8 or 32 Mb maybe more of Flash Ram? really noboby
if you want to have a squashfs for DVD images e.g. not 4.7Gb but
DualLayer ect., why do you complain?
you are maybe not even - nor you will be - a user of squashfs. but there
are many people outside that use
squashfs on different platforms and want to have it integrated to
mainline kernel. so why are you blocking?
did you have a look at the code? did you find a "trojan horse"?
no and no? so why are you blocking? if the coding style is not that what
nowadays kernel coder have as
coding style? if you care - fix it - otherwise give hints and other
people will do.
regards
marcel
-
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/