On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:00:29AM +0100, Adrian McMenamin wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 06:59 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > This file system is tied directly to the VMU. Assumptions about the > > on-disk format, block numbering limitations, etc. are all VMU > > constraints, and papering over that in the Kconfig text is not > > sufficient. This file system is and always will be tied to the VMU, and > > you really do not want to decouple the two. What you do in loopback mode > > for testing is your own business, but this will not work in the way > > people expect on a fixed disk. You are only making things harder on > > yourself by insisting that this is somehow generic. > > > > The file system at least wants a dependency on the VMU (and I suppose > > mtdblock) itself. > > Why won't it work on a fixed disk "in the way people expect"? Granted > they'd be eccentric to format a disk in this way but there is no > inherent reason why this file system *has* to be tied to a VMU. > Everything about the on-disk format is tied to the VMU. Until that sinks in, don't bother sending me email, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
