Pavel Machek wrote: -snip-
what do you need e.g. reiserfs 4 for? or jfs? or xfs? does not ext2/3 the journalling job also?So we are replacing severely-limited cramfs with also-limitedI think that's rather unfair, Squashfs is significantly better than cramfs. The main aim of Squashfs has been to achieve the best
squashfs...
Yes, it *is* rather unfair. Sorry about that. But having 2 different limited compressed filesystems in kernel does not seem good to me.
is there really a need for cifs and samba and ncpfs and nfs v3 and nfs v4? why?
-snip-
we all do - but who does really care about stupid 4Gb limits on embedded systems with e.g.Well, out-of-tree maintainenance takes lot of time, too, so by keeping limited code out-of-kernel we provide quite good incentive to make those limits go away.
Perhaps squashfs is good enough improvement over cramfs... But I'd
like those 4Gb limits to go away.
Pavel
8 or 32 Mb maybe more of Flash Ram? really noboby
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 are many people outside that use
squashfs on different platforms and want to have it integrated to mainline kernel. so why are you blocking?
did you have a look at the code? did you find a "trojan horse"?
no and no? so why are you blocking? if the coding style is not that what nowadays kernel coder have as
coding style? if you care - fix it - otherwise give hints and other people will do.
regards marcel
- 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/