Re: CRAMFS

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <35438.128.107.165.13.1068235628.squirrel@mail.yumbrad.com>
By author:    "Bradley Bozarth" <prettygood@cs.stanford.edu>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Daniel Quinlan originally maintained this, now it is orphaned.  His endian
> patch, which implemented the correct behavior according to the docs (which
> basically listed always do little endian as a todo), was dropped.
> 
> We have been maintaining this patch on our kernel, but it really should go
> in - I don't want to spend a ton of time like I did last time to have it
> dropped again, however - is anyone thinking of maintaining cramfs?  What
> are the chances of the endian fix going in if I submit it again?  (if even
> the former maintainer had no success).  I would maintain cramfs if desired
> - it hasn't really changed in a long time except in regards to higher
> level fs changes.
> 

I think Al Viro has been doing a rewrite.  You may want to check with him.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam.
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64