On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 09:55:24AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I think there is a rational case for making it possible to mount, e.g. a
> readonly ffs or iso9660 fs on a flash.  To that end, block operations
> are necessary.  It can also help to have some of these operations
> available during development.  I don't think we should be encouraging
> folks to use flash in a read/write mode this way, though, because I'm
> not planning on on doing wear-leveling in the framework.

Any thoughts on how the various existing file systems compare (by way
of run time memory and CPU overheads, I guess) when used read-only
on something like flash?  I suppose there's FFS(ro), and iso9660, as
you mentioned.  How about one of the MFS's?  Or UDF?  Any other
interesting contenders, given that rotational latency isn't an
issue?

(No, this doesn't bear on your real problem, so feel free to ignore
me unless you have a ready answer.  Just interested in the
discussion...)

Thanks for working on this.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew