On 01/06/16 20:20, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:59:03 +0100 Luis de Bethencourt > <lui...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > >> On 31/05/16 21:54, Al Viro wrote: >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:27:57PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: >>>> Remove endianness conversion functions that are declared but never used. >>> >>> Well... As long as it stays read-only - sure, you don't need to convert >>> anything to on-disk types. > > I think it would be best to leave the code as-is. The compiler will > remove it all so there's a very small amount of compile-time cost. We > could just comment the code out but then they would rot over time, >
Hi Andew, Sorry for submitting a patch that got nacked. I have two other in befs, but they are small and trivial. >> >> Hello, >> >> While reading the BeFS book "Practical Filesystems" I have gotten really >> interested in this and it's why I am reading/learning the Linux >> implementation. >> >> The idea of adding write support has crossed my mind, but I wanted to know >> if you would be interested in this before I start looking into it. Are you? >> >> It would take some time and there are other things to clean in the befs code >> first though. > > It could be a fun starter project but I have to say, befs is not a very > valuable place in which to spend your time nor is befs the best place > in which to develop familiarity. A more modest project within a more > mainstream part of the kernel would be a better investment. > That is a good point. One of the reasons I've been reading the Linux implementation of befs is because it is unmaintained. I thought I could help, but it also means there isn't huge interest for more support. Do you have any suggestions of more modest projects within other file systems? Something that would be a better time investment. Thanks for the help, Luis
