On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. So you're OK about moving super_block and inode to inculde/fs? >> 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 OK. Then I'll move it there. Should I also add timeval and related marcos as well? Yegor _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
