I agree completely and I'm sorry I didn't point that out.
Thanks for the summary.
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From:
yaffs-bounces@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
[
mailto:yaffs-bounces@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk] On Behalf Of Charles
Manning
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:15 AM
To:
yaffs@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Yaffs] [PATCH] kernel source patchin script, version 2
I have had a look at both Marty and Coywolf's patching schemes and think
that both have there place, as they serve different roles.
Marty's approach is based on the YAFFS1 patchin I did (but didn't get
exactly
right) which was, in turn based on the mtd patchin scheme.
Coywolf's approach is a "big kernel patch" that gets applied to a kernel
tree.
The patchin approach keeps YAFFS2 as a separate tree and applies a few
symlinks and minimal changes to the kernel tree to incorporate yaffs.
This means that it is rather simple to manage yaffs separately from the
rest of the tree. To update yaffs, just pull the latest yaffs code and
run the patchin. No headaches as to which version of the kernel you're
patching against etc.
The "big kernel patch" is a nice way to submit a version of YAFFS2 to
the kernel so that it can be included in the kernel sources. The hassle
with this is that it means synchronising releases of YAFFS2 with kernel
releases.
Once YAFFS2 is in the kernel, I don't think there will be much call for
"big kernel patches" - except to regularly generate a patchset for the
next kernel release. Like mtd you'd either use what is in the kernel or
pull the code from cvs or a tarball and use a patchin.
I think real YAFFS users will pull CVS and use the patchin anyway, since
the kernel will not include yaffs tools, extra documentation, bootloader
code etc.
The two approaches don't compete, but rather complement eachother.
-- Charles
_______________________________________________
yaffs mailing list
yaffs@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
http://stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yaffs
(text/plain)