Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS

[Mws]

Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
 

Also, this filesystem seems to do the same thing as cramfs.  We'd need to
understand in some detail what advantages squashfs has over cramfs to
justify merging it.  Again, that is something which is appropriate to the
changelog for patch 1/1.
         

Well, probably Phillip can answer this better than me, but the main 
differences that affect end users (and that is why we are using SquashFS 
right now) are:
                         CRAMFS          SquashFS

Max File Size               16Mb               4Gb
Max Filesystem Size        256Mb              4Gb?
       

So we are replacing severely-limited cramfs with also-limited
squashfs... For live DVDs etc 4Gb filesystem size limit will hurt for
sure, and 4Gb file size limit will hurt, too. Can those be fixed?
     

...
 

but if there is a contribution from the outside - it is not taken "as is" and maybe fixed up, which
should be nearly possible in the same time like analysing and commenting the code - it ends up
in having less supported hardware. 

imho if a hardware company does indeed provide us with opensource drivers, we should take these
things as a gift, not as a "not coding guide a'like" intrusion which
has to be defeated.
   

Remember that horse in Troja? It was a gift, too.
                                                                        Pavel
 

of course there had been a horse in troja., but thinking like that 
nowadays is a bit incorrect - don't you agree?

code is reviewed normally - thats what i told before and i stated as 
good feature - but there is no serious reason
to blame every code to have potential "trojan horses" inside and to 
reject it.

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/