From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Robert P. J. Day" Subject: Re: YAFFS in the kernel tree? Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200805290859.54396.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200805290859.54396.manningc2-jEEI2ySEPisjAXWc8ALWsQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-embedded-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Charles Manning Cc: linux-embedded-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org 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? rday p.s. and, no, you don't get a pass on coding style, but others will almost certainly help you out there. :-) -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture. http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ======================================================================== -- 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