Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS

[Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> what do you need e.g. reiserfs 4 for? or jfs? or xfs? does not ext2/3
> the journalling job also?

Ext2 does not do journaling. Ext3 does.

>> Perhaps squashfs is good enough improvement over cramfs... But I'd
>> like those 4Gb limits to go away.
>>
> 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

Then if this filesystem is specifically targeted ONLY on embedded
then that's reason for keeping it out-of-tree.

> 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

But if a filesystem COULD be made to work for MORE users - why not?

I'm sure that more than a few might use it in some form if such a limit
is removed - why lock us into a corner that when we do get around
to fixing it we need a new on-disk format and then we might have a new
filesystem, squashfs2 or whatever.

> are many people outside that use
> squashfs on different platforms and want to have it integrated to
> mainline kernel. so why are you blocking?

I think that's because people see a potential in it that has a flaw
that should be taken care of so that MORE people can use it, and
not ONLY "embedded people with 8 or 32 MB".

Seriously, noone's flaming here - I think what people want is
for a limit to be removed, and that is not in my eyes a bad thing.

// Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCP8cGBrn2kJu9P78RAsTnAKCfslYF0ez4Wkt5xgKs7AXXp1KlUgCgt0y/
pX+t5HtVhQ+EvIo667XaDBA=
=Q6RX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----