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