On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
The other question is whether we want to use streams unconditionally. I'd prefer to use such streams only in emergencies (crappy hardware).
great! how much crappy hardware is there. Is it only a part of the past or will we see it in future.
If it is only misdesign for past boards then there is an easy solution.
let's get it working first.
I don't understand this comment. If it does not work, why would we commit it to the v2 tree?
OK, first, it's working in my tree.
It's a huge improvement over LAR. It's 10 times huge over what v2 does now. I've got a patch that lets us use the old way and LCAR. (I like the name).
Since v3 already has LAR, any replacement has to demonstrate that is an improvement over LAR while not introducing additional limitations/problems.
This is a huge improvement over LAR.
Also, the code to come is design so that it is 100% backwards compatible and LCAR is by default *off*. You only use it if you want it. Hopefully, over time, 100% of us want it.
Don't get me wrong. Substantial parts of the ROMFS design are really worth having (and overlap with the LAR design), but I hope the LAR->ROMFS move is not brownian motion motivated by the intrinsic coolness of a new tool. And if someone designs LAR-NG as part of GSoC, will we switch (again)?
It's worth having. It's why I did not back-port LAR to v2.
Can we separate the "pointer to something" patch out and handle/commit it before ROMFS? I can dig up my ancient v3 patch for this.
I am not doing this for v3. This is a v2 patch.
I can see roughly a factor of 20 slowdown. That's a bit excessive for my taste.
Again, is this stupid hardware design something we only see on one bad board or might we see it again? Would be nice to know :-)
What about 0x4c415232 instead? That's "LAR2".
harder to remember but I can entertain it.
We need a policy for future romfs_header variants, too. Should they be backwards compatible? Do we want ext2-style read/write feature flags?
no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. I'm not even that big a fan of versioning in the current design, but there you are. :-)
ron