The embedded people already use them
on flash which is a little dumb, but now we add even more cludge for
a non-block based access.
Please justify your assertion that using cramfs on flash is dumb.
What would be not dumb? In an embedded system with addressable Flash
the linear addressing cramfs is simple and elegant solution.
Removing support for block based access would drastically reduce the
complexity of cramfs. The non-block access bits of code are trivial
in comparison. Specifically which part of my patch represents
unwarranted, unfixable cludge?
The right way to architect xip for flash-based devices is to implement
a generic get_xip_page for mtd-based devices and integrate that into
an existing flash filesystem or write a simple new flash filesystem
tailored to that use case.
There is often no need for the complexity of the MTD for a readonly
compressed filesystem in the embedded world. I am intrigued by the
suggestion of a generic get_xip_page() for mtd-based devices. I fail
to see how get_xip_page() is not highly filesystem dependant. How
might a generic one work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
