On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:33:59AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 06:25:56PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:23:33AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 06:06:45PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 06:05:08PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > it's not used anymore by anyone, we can remove it. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > > > > > > > my bad, we still have gadgetfs. > > > > > > I was going to ask you about that :) > > > > > > > In any case, everybody agrees about removing gadgetfs and using f_fs > > > > only ? > > > > > > gadgetfs is a userspace api that I don't think we can just drop all that > > > easily. Does f_fs do everything that gadgetfs does? > > > > yes, just a different name (functionfs instead of gadgetfs). But hey, > > can we register the same file_system_type with both names just for > > backwards compatibility ? > > Yes, we can do that, if it works the same, then this is the best thing > to do. We did the same thing a long time ago when we renamed usbdevfs > to usbfs. Great, I'll prepare that for v3.10 ;-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
