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