On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> wrote: > On 2017-02-22 11:21, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >> Ok. Could we discuss your NACK? Don't you like YAFFS just because it >> is a non-upstream code or you do not like YAFFS as a file system? > Because it's a very large chunk of non-upstream code.
:) >> In first case I would like to note that this code is perfectly >> isolated and it requires minimal maintaining. It is only require few >> patches in order to integrate it to the kernel build process while the >> main filesystem code remain as a set of files. I dig through yaffs >> commit history and found that this code was changed only few times per >> year in the past. > At least the patches we had in the past were rather messy. > >> On the other hand since the device in subject is still on market we >> could start yaffs upstreaming process and switch to upstream version >> in the future. > If you want to do that, that's fine by me. My guess is that getting the > code in shape for that will take quite a few man-months of work. The > code is not exactly pretty... > Yep. The code by itself far from perfect and from Linux code standards. Its true. > I'd like to defer any attempt at bringing it back into LEDE until it is > reasonably close to being accepted upstream. > Good point. I can not promise that I do this work in nearest future since this is not so fun work. But I will keep in mind that if I want to see it in LEDE, the LEDE first have to see it in kernel :) -- Sergey _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev