How do I add yaffs file system to mainline?

How do I add yaffs file system to mainline?

[Charles Manning]

YAFFS has been used for many years as a third-party patch-in.

I have recently been through the exercise of changing all the symbols to be 
more kernel friendly with the intention of mainlining into the linux tree.

The code is in git at http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/

Thanks to CELF and Google for sponsoring the effort so far.

What still needs to be done to mainline this?
Who do I need to approach?

Regards

Charles

Re: How do I add yaffs file system to mainline?

[Corey Ashford]

On 10/27/2010 05:08 PM, Charles Manning wrote:
> YAFFS has been used for many years as a third-party patch-in.
>
> I have recently been through the exercise of changing all the symbols to be
> more kernel friendly with the intention of mainlining into the linux tree.
>
> The code is in git at http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/
>
> Thanks to CELF and Google for sponsoring the effort so far.
>
> What still needs to be done to mainline this?
> Who do I need to approach?

I'd say you need to post a series of incremental patches which 
introduces this filesystem, why the kernel should have it, why people 
would want it, etc.

For lots more details, you should take a look at the files in 
Documentation/development-process in the kernel source tree.

-- 
Regards,

- Corey

Corey Ashford
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center, Linux Toolchain
Beaverton, OR
cjashfor@us.ibm.com

Re: How do I add yaffs file system to mainline?

[David Daney]

On 10/28/2010 10:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:41:13AM +1300, Charles Manning wrote:
>> On Friday 29 October 2010 06:26:41 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:55:02 +1300 Charles Manning wrote:
>>>> YAFFS has been used for many years as a third-party patch-in.
>>>>
>>>> I have recently been through the exercise of changing all the symbols to
>>>> be more kernel friendly with the intention of mainlining into the linux
>>>> tree.
>>>>
>>>> The code is in git at
>>>> http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/
>>>
>>> It's difficult to review&  comment on a git tree.
>>> We prefer patches via email for review.
>>>
>>>> Thanks to CELF and Google for sponsoring the effort so far.
>>>>
>>>> What still needs to be done to mainline this?
>>>> Who do I need to approach?
>>>
>>> Either ask Stephen Rothwell to add the git tree to the linux-next daily
>>> tree or ask Greg KH to add it to the drivers/staging/ area.
>>
>> Hi Randy
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> At this stage I'm hoping for some high level feedback about code layout etc.
>> and don't expect an immediate approval. I expect to do some further code
>> cleansing before getting a green light.
>>
>> We're talking around 15k lines of code. Is a huge patch set the right way?
>>   I thought it would be more polite to invite people to look at git, rather
>> than filling everyone's inboxes.
>
> Have you read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and
> Documentation/development_process/ which explains how to break up your
> code and send it out for review properly?
>
> No one is going to look at a random git tree with 15k lines of code for
> a review, sorry.  Would you?
>

The vast majority of the changes are just adding new files.  All Those 
can be found in:

http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/tree/yaffs-integration/fs/yaffs2/

That said, one could imagine a scenario where a single patch was created 
that added the contents of that directory.  That patch could then be 
send to the relevant mailing lists as several people have pointed out.

Certainly replying to a patch submission e-mail is much closer to the 
standard kernel development process than trying to comment on files in 
some random git tree.

David Daney

Re: How do I add yaffs file system to mainline?

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:59AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 10:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:41:13AM +1300, Charles Manning wrote:
> >>On Friday 29 October 2010 06:26:41 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:55:02 +1300 Charles Manning wrote:
> >>>>YAFFS has been used for many years as a third-party patch-in.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have recently been through the exercise of changing all the symbols to
> >>>>be more kernel friendly with the intention of mainlining into the linux
> >>>>tree.
> >>>>
> >>>>The code is in git at
> >>>>http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/
> >>>
> >>>It's difficult to review&  comment on a git tree.
> >>>We prefer patches via email for review.
> >>>
> >>>>Thanks to CELF and Google for sponsoring the effort so far.
> >>>>
> >>>>What still needs to be done to mainline this?
> >>>>Who do I need to approach?
> >>>
> >>>Either ask Stephen Rothwell to add the git tree to the linux-next daily
> >>>tree or ask Greg KH to add it to the drivers/staging/ area.
> >>
> >>Hi Randy
> >>
> >>Thanks for the response.
> >>
> >>At this stage I'm hoping for some high level feedback about code layout etc.
> >>and don't expect an immediate approval. I expect to do some further code
> >>cleansing before getting a green light.
> >>
> >>We're talking around 15k lines of code. Is a huge patch set the right way?
> >>  I thought it would be more polite to invite people to look at git, rather
> >>than filling everyone's inboxes.
> >
> >Have you read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and
> >Documentation/development_process/ which explains how to break up your
> >code and send it out for review properly?
> >
> >No one is going to look at a random git tree with 15k lines of code for
> >a review, sorry.  Would you?
> >
> 
> The vast majority of the changes are just adding new files.  All
> Those can be found in:
> 
> http://github.com/cdhmanning/linux-yaffs-integration/tree/yaffs-integration/fs/yaffs2/

How can one easily write an email response to any code in a git tree?

> That said, one could imagine a scenario where a single patch was
> created that added the contents of that directory.  That patch could
> then be send to the relevant mailing lists as several people have
> pointed out.

Yes, that is what needs to be done, and is what happens for all other
kernel code, why would this be an exception?

> Certainly replying to a patch submission e-mail is much closer to
> the standard kernel development process than trying to comment on
> files in some random git tree.

Exactly.