On 04/12/2012 20:09, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Renaud Barbier <renaud.barbier@xxxxxx> writes:
On 03/12/2012 19:17, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Hi Renaud,
That's a really huge piece of a patchset.
Please tell me that almost 100% of the code was taken out of the linux
kernel. Even better, are there any patches in there that are linux kernel
copies, so that review is not necessary ?
It is actually derived from U-boot which derive it from Linux. It would not be
as recent as the Linux code.
If you need the code to be fully derived from Linux, then ignore it. This is
something
I hopefully can work on in the future (N months).
It's up to Sascha, but I think out of U-boot is fine too. So are all the
patches a full copy paste of U-boot, or are there specific parts (adaptation) to
barebox ?
99% of the updates happened in the file ubifs.c. The rest is cosmetic
(super.c):
There is code specific to U-boot that has been reworked:
ubifs_load was the basis to create ubifs_open, ubifs_read, ubifs_close
ubifs_ls was the basis to create ubifs_opendir, ubifs_closedir
ubifs_stat is also derived from U-boot code.
or renamed
ubifs_printdir -> ubifs_doreaddir (similar to Linux code)
There is code added to Barebox:
ubifs_probe, ubifs_remove.
To do:
zlib is commented out. Only lzo support has been tested.
Entry point: there is no 'link' entry point.
I'd think that if you tested the patches succesfully in barebox, and if the
adaptation is very small, we will review only the adaptation ... hence the
question, where is the adaptation ?
Cheers.
--
Robert
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
