From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1aNco9-0004Af-6D for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:47:33 +0000 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:47:11 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20160125084711.GX13058@pengutronix.de> References: <1453663456-5168-1-git-send-email-yegorslists@googlemail.com> <20160125082015.GW13058@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC] fs: move super_block and inode definitions to central fs.h header To: Yegor Yefremov Cc: barebox On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sascha Hauer 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 > >> wrote: > >> > Both super_block and inode are common to various file systems, so > >> > move them to the central place. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov > >> > --- > >> > 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? Sorry, I should have read the patch before replying to your followup. You were talking about the struct inode/superblock in ubifs which indeed are taken from the kernel and not actively used by barebox. These should indeed go to include/linux/. > > >> 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? I would rather take the lazy approach and add them as needed. 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@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox