From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759346AbYEaTJW (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 15:09:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757179AbYEaS4V (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 14:56:21 -0400 Received: from eth7959.sa.adsl.internode.on.net ([150.101.82.22]:41189 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757171AbYEaS4U (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 14:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:26:05 +0930 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: arnd@arndb.de CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support References: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org arnd@arndb.de wrote: > Many existing systems currently use unionfs or aufs for this > purpose, by overlaying a tmpfs over a read-only file > system like cramfs, squashfs or iso9660. IMHO, it would > be a much nicer solution to not require unionfs for a simple > case like this, but rather have support for it in the file > system. If people find this useful, we can do the same in > other read-only file system. > 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.