On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 08:55:22PM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Yegor Yefremov > <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Both super_block and inode are common to various file systems, so > > move them to the central place. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/ubifs/ubifs.h | 134 +------------------------------------------------------ > > include/fs.h | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) > > I'm trying to port SquashFS to Barebox. SquashFS uses at least both > super_block structure as also inode structure. Does it make sense to > introduce include/linux/fs.h? I think not. Using include/linux/ for header files is good for stuff directly taken from the kernel, but I think the fs related structures in barebox are quite different from the ones in the kernel. > > What to do with struct timespec? It is defined in uapi part. Should it > go to include/linux/barebox-wrapper.h? barebox-wrapper.h contains no-op wrappers for stuff from the kernel that we want to keep around just to be able to compile kernel code with less modifications. struct timespec doesn't really fall into that category, I rather suggest its original place: include/linux/time.h Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
