From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([88.190.12.23]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Tb7BQ-0005Go-3k for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:05:29 +0000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:05:18 +0100 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Ricard Wanderlof Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] ubi: Add ubiblock driver Message-ID: <20121121110518.3147bd34@skate> In-Reply-To: References: <20121121105636.4c8687e0@skate> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Opdenacker , Ezequiel Garcia , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Ricard Wanderlof, On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:00:49 +0100, Ricard Wanderlof wrote: > > The idea, when David Wagner implemented this, was to be able to use > > read-only block filesystems such as squashfs on top of a UBI volume. > > squashfs provides an excellent compression ratio, which makes it > > interesting. > > Yes, I agree, that would be useful. Yes, but only the read-only side of ubiblock. The write side is dangerous and useless, IMO. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com