Hi Paul,
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 08:10 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The point is that people making changes to the filesystem interfaces
> will be much more likely to notice and fix stuff that is under fs/
> than code that is buried deep under arch/ somewhere. Filesystems
> should go under fs/ for the sake of long-term maintainability. The
> fact that it's only used on one architecture is irrelevant - you
> simply make sure (with the appropriate Kconfig bits) that it's only
> offered on that architecture.
I think the fact that it is highly architecture specific is relevant. I
have no way of testing spufs changes except on cell, no? And if I am
developing on a cell, I probably will notice it in arch/ all the same.
So I don't quite buy your the maintenace argument.
But as Arnd said, there are no clear rules on what kind of filesystems
should go into fs/ so please do whatever you must.
Pekka
-
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]
