[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239692429.6538.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:00:29 +0100
From: Adrian McMenamin <adrian@...golddream.dyndns.info>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@...efsipek.net>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] filesystem: Vmufat filesystem, version 4
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 06:59 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> This file system is tied directly to the VMU. Assumptions about the
> on-disk format, block numbering limitations, etc. are all VMU
> constraints, and papering over that in the Kconfig text is not
> sufficient. This file system is and always will be tied to the VMU, and
> you really do not want to decouple the two. What you do in loopback mode
> for testing is your own business, but this will not work in the way
> people expect on a fixed disk. You are only making things harder on
> yourself by insisting that this is somehow generic.
>
> The file system at least wants a dependency on the VMU (and I suppose
> mtdblock) itself.
Why won't it work on a fixed disk "in the way people expect"? Granted
they'd be eccentric to format a disk in this way but there is no
inherent reason why this file system *has* to be tied to a VMU.
--
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