From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KWZt3-0003mR-Pd for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:53:22 +0000 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Jared Hulbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] AXFS: axfs_super.c Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:52:37 +0200 References: <48AD0101.4020505@gmail.com> <48AE19AD.1020209@lougher.demon.co.uk> <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808221852.38950.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: cotte@de.ibm.com, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, Phillip Lougher , =?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn?= Engel , Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , tim.bird@am.sony.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 22 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote: > > This implies for block devices that the entire filesystem metadata has = to be > > cached in RAM. =C2=A0This severely limits the size of AXFS filesystems = when using > > block devices, or the else memory usage will be excessive. >=20 > This is where 64bit squashfs could be a better fit. Is this the only place where squashfs has a significant advantage?=20 If so, you might want to change it in axfs eventually to make the decision easier for users ;-) It certainly sounds like something for your medium-term TODO list, although I wouldn't think of it as a show-stopper. Arnd <><