On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:50 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I think this is the wrong approach. For one thing the unit terms is
> rather foregin in Linux
I would rather disagree. Subjective. Unit is a generic word, just like
subsystem. Unit-tests for example is a widespread word it refer to
internal units of a big system.
> , and second this one header file "unit" is
> definitly too much.
It is .c + .h.
Why definitely, where is the definition? I appreciate your opinion, but
do not want any endless discussion about "how the life has to go",
though.
> Normally you'd have as little as possible and at
> most four:
>
> (1) internal definitions of the driver
> (2) external kernel interface of the driver if nessecary
> (3) user interface of the driver if nessecary
> (4) ondisk structure if nessecary
Where does this rather restrictive model come from? What does it mean in
practice for UBI? Please, be more specific.
> Also please make sure you submit patches at this driver level. You really
> want one git commit per driver that is totally self-contained. If nessecary
> you'd split this into multiple patches if a single one would be bigger then
> the message size limit.
Please, refine what does this exactly mean. I do not see how I should
have sent it, sorry. OK, I've separated external headers, JFFS2 support,
build stuff. What next?
And I sent it just for review, as you requested, I assumed that for the
pull we have git, and I specified the URL.
Thanks,
Artem.
--
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
