From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Manning Subject: Re: YAFFS in the kernel tree? Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:14:51 +1200 Message-ID: <200805290914.51814.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> References: <200805290859.54396.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: linux-embedded-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:12:40 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Charles Manning wrote: > > 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?? > > perhaps a dumb question, but does this include YAFFS2 as well? > > p.s. and, no, you don't get a pass on coding style, but others will > almost certainly help you out there. :-) That would only be yaffs2 which has yaffs1 backward compatibility built in. -- 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