From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <200805312240.50720.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de To: David Newall Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:49422 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753459AbYEaUlP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 16:41:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday 31 May 2008, David Newall wrote: > I don't agree that it is nicer to do this in cramfs. =A0I prefer the > technique of union of a tmpfs over some other fs because a single > solution that works with all filesystems is better than re-implementi= ng > the same idea in multiple filesystems. =A0Multiple implementations is= a > recipe for bugs and feature mismatch. You're right in principle, but unfortunately there is to date no workin= g implementation of union mounts. Giving users the option of using an existing file system with a few tweaks can only be better than than forcing them to use hacks like unionfs. Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html