[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac9c93b10808202332n2654884eh877848df2da59f20@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:32:08 +0200
From: "Frans Meulenbroeks" <fransmeulenbroeks@...il.com>
To: jaredeh@...il.com
Cc: Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Jörn Engel" <joern@...fs.org>,
tim.bird@...sony.com, cotte@...ibm.com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] AXFS: Advanced XIP filesystem
Jared, nice work!
I've also read your paper from the linux symposium
(http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/hulbert-reprint.pdf)
A few questions:
- how does this benchmark compared to cramfs and squashfs in a NAND-only system
(or is it just not a good plan to use this with NAND-only (of course
I won't get XIP with NAND, I understand that)
- would axfs be suitable as a filesystem on a ram disk?
Background for the last question is that if you do not have the memory
to retain all pages uncompressed (as you would with ramfs), this could
be a nice intermediate format.
Furthermore compared to ramfs, a filesystem on a ramdisk does not need
the initialisation during startup (decompressing the cpio file,
creating the files, copying the data), so when it comes to boot times
a filesystem on a ramdisk (e.g. axfs) could be a better choice.
Appreciate your feedback.
Frans.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists