On 6/7/07, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:37:07PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The code is at http://verein.lst.de/~hch/cramfs-xip.tar.gz.
And for thus just wanting to take a quick glance, this is the
diff vs an out of tree cramfs where uncompress.c and cramfs_fs_sb.h
are merged into inode.c:
Cool. I notice you removed my UML hacks... Why?
I just don't get one thing. This is almost a duplicate of
cramfs-block. Why would we prefer a fork with a lot of code
duplication to adding a couple alternate code paths in cramfs-block?
Also keep in mind there are several reasons why you might want to have
block access to to a XIP built cramfs image. I am unpersuaded that
this fork approach is fundamentally better.
-
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]
