On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 07:06 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On 12/12/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On 12/12/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> I have created the 'kill-jffs' branch of > > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git that > > >> removes fs/jffs. > > >> > > >> I argue that you can count the users (who aren't on 2.4) on one hand, > > >> and developers don't seem to have cared for it in ages. > > >> > > >> People are already talking about jffs2 replacements, so I propose we zap > > >> jffs in 2.6.21. > > > > > > I'm usually all for killing broken code, but JFFS isn't really broken > > > is it? Is there some burden it's causing by being in the kernel at > > > the moment? > > > > It's always been the case that we remove Linux kernel code when the > > number of users (and more importantly, developers) drops to near-nil. > > > > Every line of code is one more place you have to audit when code > > changes, one more place to update each time the VFS API is touched. > > Ok, I can buy that. > > > > > When it's more likely to get struck by lightning than encounter > > filesystem X on a random hard drive in the field, filesystem X need not > > be in the kernel. > > Or flash chip in this case ;) More to the point, people have occasionally actually _used_ JFFS instead of JFFS2. I'm all for removing it now. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
