From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755572Ab0CDAVG (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:21:06 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:52571 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754487Ab0CDAU6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:20:58 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FyFk4cxXSgnnilxflbFevxwcjH7c6do5RWq6gw4g8hu131j8hm887EAio4gZ679AcN G4fhDYpXLIQ3vcOLmrktDeYUAlTkvrBrTIKk3/5nxCqophYMRpgOuv9vEdeU2OeSwSaV QiPxTsxKit26mzX1KclaFzFJeaUko29ANeqE4= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9debc4411003030709r597d4f6dmeacadce5c3cf2ed7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1267506354.1618.4.camel@virtubuntu> <201003021451.59773.arnd@arndb.de> <9debc4411003030709r597d4f6dmeacadce5c3cf2ed7@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:20:37 -0500 Message-ID: <8bd0f97a1003031620s44cff658x81fc36fa2a8efd96@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: yaffs2 NAND fs To: Maxin John Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Peter Paul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:09, Maxin John wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Peter Paul wrote: >>> I was wondering why the yaffs2 file system has not gone for mainline >>> yet. It's rather popular flash file system in the embedded world, while >>> it is rather easy to patch a kernel to have yaffs2 support [1] it would >>> be even nicer if it was just in mainline. >>> The source of the GPLv2 file system can be found at [2] >>> >>> [1] http://www.yaffs.net/howto-incorporate-yaffs >>> [2] http://www.aleph1.co.uk/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/yaffs2/ >> >> I would guess it's a combination of multiple reasons: >> >> 1. It has not been submitted for upstream inclusion, at least not >>   during the last few years. >> 2. We don't have a staging area like drivers/staging for file systems >>   in the way that we have for drivers >> 3. There is now ubifs and (soon) logfs upstream, both of which appear >>   to be superior to yaffs in many ways. > > This means there should be no reference to YAFFS2 in the upstream > kernel? Because, I have located some defconfigs in upstream kernel > where YAFFS2 support is enabled by default. irrelevant noise -mike