On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:07PM +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > > >>+config SQUASHFS_1_0_COMPATIBILITY > >>+ bool "Include support for mounting SquashFS 1.x filesystems" > > > >How common are these? It would be nice not to bring in legacy code. > > Squashfs 1.x filesystems were the previous file format. Embedded > systems tend to be conservative, and so there are quite a few systems > out there using 1.x filesystems. I've also heard of quite a few cases > where Squashfs is used as an archival filesystem, and so there's > probably quite a few 1.x fileystems around for this reason. > > One issue which I'm aware of here is deciding what getting squashfs > support into the kernel is meant to answer. I'm asking for it to be put > into the kernel because developers out there are asking me to put it in > the kernel - because they don't want to continually (re)patch their kernels.
My suggestion would be to break out the 1.x code into a separate patch and encourage everyone to convert to 2.x. No one has ever created a 1.x fs with the expectation it'll work on an unpatched kernel, so they don't lose anything. And no one should be creating such any more, right? > >>+ unsigned int s_major:16; > >>+ unsigned int s_minor:16; > > > >What's going on here? s_minor's not big enough for modern minor > >numbers. > > What is the modern size then? Minors are 22 bits, majors are 10. May grow to 32 each at some point. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/