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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
