Re: YAFFS in the kernel tree?

["Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Charles Manning wrote:
> 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).

i'm pretty sure you're going to have to cull all of the
LINUX_VERSION_CODE checks.  that means the in tree yaffs code is only
going to track mainline kernel versions.  i dont know whether you
consider that a pro or con (i say it's a pro), but if you want/need
those checks, you're basically going to have to maintain two forked
versions ...
-mike
--
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