From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751817AbeFALQg (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:16:36 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:8622 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbeFALQW (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:16:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [NOMERGE] [RFC PATCH 00/12] erofs: introduce erofs file system To: Richard Weinberger CC: LKML , linux-fsdevel , , , , , , , , , References: <1527764767-22190-1-git-send-email-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <1670077.cnVahIradn@blindfold> From: Gao Xiang Message-ID: <863d726d-e919-9ee1-56e4-994c8ab09f4b@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 19:16:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1670077.cnVahIradn@blindfold> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.151.23.176] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/6/1 17:28, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2018, 11:11:21 CEST schrieb Gao Xiang: >>> In which sense is it extendable? >> >> Actually, the meaning of an enhanced (means not just read-only, but with the scalable >> on-disk layout, compression, or fs-verify in the future) read-only file system is emphasized. > > ah ok. > >> We also think of other candidate full names, such as >> Enhanced / Extented Read-only File System, all the names short for "erofs" are okay. > > TBH, I read "erofs" as "error fs". ;-) eh..."erofs" indeed comes from the EROFS error code, that is a playful behaviour... I think the error code of EROFS is not so bad... :'( Also hope for a better name but not only highlight the compression... We have some further plans other than the compression. Anyway, the name is currently not vital tho. :D > >>> How does it compare to existing read only filesystems, such as squashfs? >>> >> >> You are quite right. >> >> We are now focusing on improving our decompression subsystem and >> these numbers will be successively added in the future non-RFC patches. >> >> We haven't pay much attention on comparing squashfs and erofs >> yet since we once tried to use squashfs on our products with >> different block sizes several years ago, it behaves >> unacceptable in the low free memory scenario besides its >> performance. > > I'm interested in the comparison because I use squashfs often > for embedded devices on top of ubiblock (raw nand). > If there is something that can do better, I'm all for it. > We're trying our best. ;) > Thanks, > //richard > Thanks,