DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=C8BCVXwy6/JS67GXBJtTVbydYUHHqufaaXOtRtvi/bok7BmAZ4c3Kv+yOAYqJazoW8Naey8cz8UcKDXCies9nqE+V81tP5i6lziynnPMJsYafvfvxKQOn9pEPAEzIVO+KnnZism4ug94alOy7gZB3CxlPuTd3fQ2RxOsmTvziec=
Message-ID: <6934efce0706071411y6d184629i5ce0694175bef164@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:11:44 -0700
From: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@gmail.com>
To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org>,
       "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@gmail.com>, carsteno@de.ibm.com,
       "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
       "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       richard.griffiths@windriver.com,
       "Richard Griffiths" <res07ml0@verizon.net>,
       Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] cramfs: add cramfs Linear XIP
In-Reply-To: <20070607193707.GA17144@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4653F264.1030807@de.ibm.com>
	 <6934efce0706011748p46cf7995vdca0b9cc3f0b06a3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46612D6F.6000002@yahoo.com.au> <46641472.3080802@de.ibm.com>
	 <6934efce0706060413y6e74512s19d5f468106d4b85@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070606113351.GA11701@infradead.org>
	 <6934efce0706060907n209fe6bcnb470101196aa9c55@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070606161621.GA20247@infradead.org>
	 <6934efce0706061126n551cccaeg68a0def87457911@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070607193707.GA17144@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1010
Lines: 22

> that even more important doesn't require pulling in
> the whole block layer which is especially important for embedded
> devices at the lower end of the scala.

Good point.  That is a big oversight.  Though I would prefer to handle
that in the same fs rather than fork.

> I still think it'd be even better to just
> hook xip support into jffs or logfs because they give you a full
> featured flash filesystem for all needs without the complexity
> of strictly partitioning between xip-capable and write parts
> of your storage.

This is nirvana.   But it is not the goal of the patches in question.
In fact there are several use cases that don't need and don't value
the writeability and don't need therefore the overhead.  It is a long
term goal never the less.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/