Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:25:31 +0000 | From | Phillip Lougher <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Squashfs updates for 3.2 |
| |
NamJae Jeon wrote:
> > I already posted this patch before ([PATCH] squashfs : devblksize set > to 4KB intead of BLOCK_SIZE(1KB).).
No you didn't. You posted a patch that simply unconditionally changed the block size from 1K -> 4K.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/18/66
This is an unacceptable change, Squashfs is used on many devices not only NAND, and the default value of 1K is optimal for these other devices, and should not be changed.
Second, if you are going to change long-term existing behaviour you should always allow users to "buy-in" to the change, rather than surprising them with new unexpected behaviour.
> It is similar with my patch except option.
The option *is* the patch.
> Have you ever seen this patch ? I didn't response about this patch from you.
Since 2008 (and probably before) I have had reports that a 1K block size was causing performance issues on NAND
http://old.nabble.com/Default-FS-block-size-td15423970.html
However, I chose to do nothing at that time because the results were inconclusive.
The impetus for moving to a 1K block on NAND was due to the development of the UBIBLK driver for NAND earlier this year
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-June/036595.html
where the 1K dev block behaviour of Squashfs was discovered to be the reason (in the early V1 driver referenced above) why Squashfs filesystems worked, but ext2/3 and vfat filesystems did not.
Your patch was merely the 3rd or 4th unacceptable patch I have received changing the block size unconditionally.
The month before your patch I received this truly horrible patch, which though it is extremely long, does nothing more than change the max dev block size to 4K. I dropped that patch too.
Phillip
| |