Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS
From: Matt Mackall (mpm_at_selenic.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:04:32 -0800 To: Phillip Lougher <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:07PM +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> Matt Mackall 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 the previous file format. Embedded
> systems tend to be conservative, and so there are quite a few systems
> out there using 1.x filesystems. I've also heard of quite a few cases
> where Squashfs is used as an archival filesystem, and so there's
> probably quite a few 1.x fileystems around for this reason.
> One issue which I'm aware of here is deciding what getting squashfs
> support into the kernel is meant to answer. I'm asking for it to be put
> into the kernel because developers out there are asking me to put it in
> the kernel - because they don't want to continually (re)patch their kernels.
My suggestion would be to break out the 1.x code into a separate patch
and encourage everyone to convert to 2.x. No one has ever created a
1.x fs with the expectation it'll work on an unpatched kernel, so they
don't lose anything. And no one should be creating such any more, right?
> >>+ unsigned int s_major:16;
> >>+ unsigned int s_minor:16;
> >What's going on here? s_minor's not big enough for modern minor
> What is the modern size then?
Minors are 22 bits, majors are 10. May grow to 32 each at some point.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/