On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:19:28AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Think about someone changing the VFS layer interface and fixing up all
> the filesystems to accommodate that change. That person is doing some
> of your work for you, so you want to make it easy for him/her to find
> your filesystem. That's the sort of thing I was referring to as
> maintenance.
FWIW, I think it's not a serious argument. Interface changes => grep time.
And that means grep over the tree anyway.
> As for changes on the cell-specific side, the people doing those
> changes will know where to find it, so it isn't a problem having it in
> fs/.
>
> Having it in fs/ also means that it is more likely that people
> familiar with VFS internals will look through your code and comment on
> it. I know that can be painful in the short term, but in the long
> term it will lead to better code.
That's solved by asking for review...
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing here that looks like a possible
reason to move the entire thing is highly unusual semantics of final
close and interesting use of VFS interfaces in spu_create(). I.e. it's
not that we have a filesystem there.
OTOH, if you go looking for analogs as far as unusual interaction with VFS
is concerned... net/unix is unlikely to get moved.
-
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]
