Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] filesystem: Vmufat filesystem, version 4
From: Adrian McMenamin <adrian@newgolddream.dyndns.info>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-sh <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@josefsipek.net>,
       Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090413215949.GD14847@linux-sh.org>
References: <1239654768.6542.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090413210030.GA14847@linux-sh.org>
	 <1239658604.6542.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090413215949.GD14847@linux-sh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:00:29 +0100
Message-Id: <1239692429.6538.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1137
Lines: 23

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/