On 2018/6/1 17:28, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2018, 11:11:21 CEST schrieb Gao Xiang: >>> In which sense is it extendable? >> >> Actually, the meaning of an enhanced (means not just read-only, but with the scalable >> on-disk layout, compression, or fs-verify in the future) read-only file system is emphasized. > > ah ok. > >> We also think of other candidate full names, such as >> Enhanced / Extented Read-only File System, all the names short for "erofs" are okay. > > TBH, I read "erofs" as "error fs". ;-) eh..."erofs" indeed comes from the EROFS error code, that is a playful behaviour... I think the error code of EROFS is not so bad... :'( Also hope for a better name but not only highlight the compression... We have some further plans other than the compression. Anyway, the name is currently not vital tho. :D > >>> How does it compare to existing read only filesystems, such as squashfs? >>> >> >> You are quite right. >> >> We are now focusing on improving our decompression subsystem and >> these numbers will be successively added in the future non-RFC patches. >> >> We haven't pay much attention on comparing squashfs and erofs >> yet since we once tried to use squashfs on our products with >> different block sizes several years ago, it behaves >> unacceptable in the low free memory scenario besides its >> performance. > > I'm interested in the comparison because I use squashfs often > for embedded devices on top of ubiblock (raw nand). > If there is something that can do better, I'm all for it. > We're trying our best. ;) > Thanks, > //richard > Thanks,
