linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] cramfs: add cramfs Linear XIP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:27:46 -0700
From:	"Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com>
To:	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com>, carsteno@...ibm.com,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	richard.griffiths@...driver.com,
	"Richard Griffiths" <res07ml0@...izon.net>,
	Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] cramfs: add cramfs Linear XIP

On 6/7/07, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:37:07PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The code is at http://verein.lst.de/~hch/cramfs-xip.tar.gz.
>
> And for thus just wanting to take a quick glance, this is the
> diff vs an out of tree cramfs where uncompress.c and cramfs_fs_sb.h
> are merged into inode.c:

Cool.  I notice you removed my UML hacks... Why?

I just don't get one thing.  This is almost a duplicate of
cramfs-block.  Why would we prefer a fork with a lot of code
duplication to adding a couple alternate code paths in cramfs-block?

Also keep in mind there are several reasons why you might want to have
block access to to a XIP built cramfs image.  I am unpersuaded that
this fork approach is fundamentally better.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/