Andrew Morton wrote:
Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a useful, stable, and _maintained_ filesystem and I'm a bit
surprised that there is this much resistance to it's inclusion.
Although I've only been following things with half an eye, I don't think
there's a lot of resistance.
Pavel Machek wrote:
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.
Sorry but I'm not calling Squashfs "limited" and I don't think it is.
If you wanted to nit-pick many of the current
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
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
Pavel Machek wrote:
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.
Sorry but I'm not calling Squashfs limited and I don't think it is.
If you wanted to nit-pick many of the current
Andrew Morton wrote:
Josh Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a useful, stable, and _maintained_ filesystem and I'm a bit
surprised that there is this much resistance to it's inclusion.
Although I've only been following things with half an eye, I don't think
there's a lot of resistance. It's
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Perhaps squashfs is good enough improvement over cramfs... But I'd
like those 4Gb limits to go away.
So would I. But it is a totally groundless reason to refuse kernel
submission because of that, Squashfs users are quite happily using it
with such a terrible limitation.
Pavel Machek wrote:
And people merging xfs/reiserfs4/etc did address problems pointed out
in their code.
Where did I say I wasn't addressing the problems pointed out in the
code. All the issues I can fix I am addressing.
Pavel
-
Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+static struct inode *squashfs_iget(struct super_block *s, squashfs_inode
inode)
+{
+ struct inode *i;
+ squashfs_sb_info *msBlk = (squashfs_sb_info *)s->s_fs_info;
+ squashfs_super_block *sBl
Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static struct inode *squashfs_iget(struct super_block *s, squashfs_inode
inode)
+{
+ struct inode *i;
+ squashfs_sb_info *msBlk = (squashfs_sb_info *)s-s_fs_info;
+ squashfs_super_block *sBlk = msBlk-sBlk
Andrew Morton wrote in relation to my initial SquashFS patch:
Phillip Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+skip_read:
+ memset(pageaddr + bytes, 0, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - bytes);
+ kunmap(page);
+ flush_dcache_page(page);
+ SetPageUptodate(page);
+ unlock_pag
Andrew Morton wrote in relation to my initial SquashFS patch:
Phillip Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+skip_read:
+ memset(pageaddr + bytes, 0, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - bytes);
+ kunmap(page);
+ flush_dcache_page(page);
+ SetPageUptodate(page);
+ unlock_page(page
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:30:33PM +, Phillip Lougher wrote:
+config SQUASHFS_1_0_COMPATIBILITY
+ bool "Include support for mounting SquashFS 1.x filesystems"
How common are these? It would be nice not to bring in legacy code.
Squashfs 1.x filesy
Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ on-disk bitfields ]
I've checked compatibilty against Intel 32 and 64 bit architectures,
PPC 32/64 bit, ARM, MIPS
and SPARC. I've used compilers from 2.91.x upto 3.4...
hm, OK. I remain a bit skeptical but it sounds like
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:50:26PM +, Phillip Lougher wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
In the overall kernel (Linus's bk tree) I count:
733 lines matching 'for *( *; *; *)'
718 lines matching 'while *( *1 *)'
In the kernel/*.c files, I count 15
Paul Jackson wrote:
In the overall kernel (Linus's bk tree) I count:
733 lines matching 'for *( *; *; *)'
718 lines matching 'while *( *1 *)'
In the kernel/*.c files, I count 15 of the 'for(;;)' style and 1 of the
'while(1)' style.
Certainly the 'for(;;)' style is acceptable, and
Paul Jackson wrote:
In the overall kernel (Linus's bk tree) I count:
733 lines matching 'for *( *; *; *)'
718 lines matching 'while *( *1 *)'
In the kernel/*.c files, I count 15 of the 'for(;;)' style and 1 of the
'while(1)' style.
Certainly the 'for(;;)' style is acceptable, and
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:50:26PM +, Phillip Lougher wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
In the overall kernel (Linus's bk tree) I count:
733 lines matching 'for *( *; *; *)'
718 lines matching 'while *( *1 *)'
In the kernel/*.c files, I count 15
Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ on-disk bitfields ]
I've checked compatibilty against Intel 32 and 64 bit architectures,
PPC 32/64 bit, ARM, MIPS
and SPARC. I've used compilers from 2.91.x upto 3.4...
hm, OK. I remain a bit skeptical but it sounds like you're
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:30:33PM +, Phillip Lougher wrote:
+config SQUASHFS_1_0_COMPATIBILITY
+ bool Include support for mounting SquashFS 1.x filesystems
How common are these? It would be nice not to bring in legacy code.
Squashfs 1.x filesystems were
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 01:06 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
[lots of comments from patch 1/2 are applicable here]
OK. Noted :-)
+#define SQUASHFS_MAX_FILE_SIZE ((long l
-2.6.11.3-squashfs/fs/squashfs/squashfs1_0.c 2005-03-14
00:53:28.052565808 +
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
+/*
+ * Squashfs - a compressed read only filesystem for Linux
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
+ * Phillip Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you c
it to the kernel.
Please consider adding it.
The SquashFS patch has been split into two. This email contains
inode.c, the next email contains everything else.
Thanks
Phillip Lougher
Signed-Off-By: Phillip Lougher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
diff --new-file -urp linux-2.6.11.3/fs/squashfs/inode.c
linux-2.6.11.3
it to the kernel.
Please consider adding it.
The SquashFS patch has been split into two. This email contains
inode.c, the next email contains everything else.
Thanks
Phillip Lougher
Signed-Off-By: Phillip Lougher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
diff --new-file -urp linux-2.6.11.3/fs/squashfs/inode.c
linux-2.6.11.3
-squashfs/fs/squashfs/squashfs1_0.c 2005-03-14
00:53:28.052565808 +
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
+/*
+ * Squashfs - a compressed read only filesystem for Linux
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
+ * Phillip Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 01:06 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
Phillip Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
[lots of comments from patch 1/2 are applicable here]
OK. Noted :-)
+#define SQUASHFS_MAX_FILE_SIZE ((long long) 1
201 - 226 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
