From: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@googlemail.com>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] fs: move super_block and inode definitions to central fs.h header
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:49:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGm1_ksEakwBenb-FHRCNNvocsL_X2RdYECcaD+MeYYp2MiXWQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160125084711.GX13058@pengutronix.de>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> 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@googlemail.com> 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@googlemail.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > 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/.
OK
>>
>> >> 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.
OK
Yegor
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-25 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-24 19:24 Yegor Yefremov
2016-01-24 19:55 ` Yegor Yefremov
2016-01-25 8:20 ` Sascha Hauer
2016-01-25 8:40 ` Yegor Yefremov
2016-01-25 8:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2016-01-25 8:49 ` Yegor Yefremov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGm1_ksEakwBenb-FHRCNNvocsL_X2RdYECcaD+MeYYp2MiXWQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yegorslists@googlemail.com \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox