From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Manning Subject: YAFFS in the kernel tree? Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:59:54 +1200 Message-ID: <200805290859.54396.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-embedded-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Hi I'm the author of YAFFS. This is not in the kernel tree, but is fairly easy to integrate by just pulling a tarball and running patch-in script. I am curious as to whether people consider the current mechanism "good enough" or whether it is worth the effort trying to get YAFFS into the kernel tree. Pros I can see: * In tree means better testing (maybe). * Keeping current with kernel API changes. Cons: * More effort for YAFFS maintainers (me mostly). * Effort getting code into kernel coding style (unless I can get a waiver on this). Thoughts?? -- CHarles -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html