From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:42:23 +0200 Message-ID: <200806021942.24750.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> <200806021315.41211.arnd@arndb.de> <20080602145404.GA22400@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp, Jamie Lokier , Phillip Lougher , David Newall , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de To: Evgeniy Polyakov Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183]:62797 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751930AbYFBRq4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:46:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080602145404.GA22400@2ka.mipt.ru> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 02 June 2008, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > I personally think that a policy other than writing to the top is crazy > > enough, but randomly writing to multiple places is much worse, as it > > becomes unpredictable what the file system does, not just unexpected. > > Is this a double rot13 encoded "people will never use computers with > more than 640 kb of ram" phrase? :) No, it's more the "people don't need variable block size drives" argument. They've been working fine for decades on mainframes, are incredibly complicated to build and entirely pointless in practice ;-) Arnd <><