From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1aNchu-0001ae-NG for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:41:07 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id b35so103045332qge.0 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:40:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160125082015.GW13058@pengutronix.de> References: <1453663456-5168-1-git-send-email-yegorslists@googlemail.com> <20160125082015.GW13058@pengutronix.de> From: Yegor Yefremov Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:40:26 +0100 Message-ID: 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: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox 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? >> 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@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox