From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756083AbYEaUlZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 16:41:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753664AbYEaUlQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 16:41:16 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:49422 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753459AbYEaUlP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 16:41:15 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: David Newall Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:50 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de References: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> In-Reply-To: <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805312240.50720.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ziyVm/HuKwb/NMwAaQ7gP0VIDoQpOUvLrVp1 CmF4KuFZl6hSyn3aFSzsBs26ZK5E7bttg8gqnV+3dvkiF7opI2 rQnk4V3CjcIz4ND4ZVCNQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 31 May 2008, David Newall wrote: > I don't agree that it is nicer to do this in cramfs.  I prefer the > technique of union of a tmpfs over some other fs because a single > solution that works with all filesystems is better than re-implementing > the same idea in multiple filesystems.  Multiple implementations is a > recipe for bugs and feature mismatch. You're right in principle, but unfortunately there is to date no working implementation of union mounts. Giving users the option of using an existing file system with a few tweaks can only be better than than forcing them to use hacks like unionfs. Arnd <><