On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
So this scenario requires that we have two cbfs file headers, and data somewhere else, not necessarily contiguous with the header. Does the cbfstool currently create this kind of image?
I don't think so.
I don't think it does either.
I think CBFS requires the header to be contiguous with the data. We could change it, but that seems like a fundamental redesign.
Agreed.
It would be easier to walk if all the headers were contiguous.
Agreed. But then you have to leave room somewhere for all possible headers, which means you have to reserve part of flash for headers only, which is something I would rather not do.
Yes.
Many of the proposed changes will result in balooning cbfs code, which I think we should avoid. I'm not even sure that arbitrary file name lengths (which we have now) are a good idea :-)
I agree. I think 16 bytes could be plenty...32 if someone complains that there aren't enough file names in 16 characters.
Myles