From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753750Ab0CXGfL (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:35:11 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:63119 "EHLO mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891Ab0CXGfI (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:35:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=gQBI2tkriIJxgFDl7xhcYcL3nsV9u2csFIVmbkuxy7qcv1ZYmqC7JfnqLBu7Lgx/Dq LxIBdh0g1OGJEVzlqXYLkGsGxR0OWm1rtf/kG0p+TKPM+XV/DRncmaMqSYauOXDZvgt3 qp1y8J/fCxKzWUNsU36MP9+CV3/BEfhI9+bVc= From: Peter Korsgaard To: Phillip Lougher Cc: Ferenc Wagner , Phillip Lougher , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: direct MTD support for SquashFS References: <87vdcwv139.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> <87ljdsibqe.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <87r5nhziss.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> <8739zqpxxw.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> <4BA9A1BB.4000105@lougher.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:35:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4BA9A1BB.4000105@lougher.demon.co.uk> (Phillip Lougher's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:23:07 +0000") Message-ID: <87y6hii5wq.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Phillip" == Phillip Lougher writes: Hi, Phillip> BTW as a comparison, I have added MTD support to Squashfs Phillip> twice in the past, *with* bad block support. The latest has a Phillip> diff patch of ~500 lines, with far less complexity and code Phillip> changes necessary. Could we merge that then please? Again, what kind of size reduction can we expect from getting rid of the block layer? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard