Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:44:36 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Grzegorz Bernacki <gjb@semihalf.com> Cc: geom@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Review of projects/nand branch Message-ID: <CB41CA4E-2AC0-4C62-905A-B4BCDBDD240A@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <4F88F966.5030300@semihalf.com> References: <EE2F4D7D-F6D9-48D4-923A-99DAA62698B2@xcllnt.net> <4F7A6A0B.5000308@semihalf.com> <4F88F966.5030300@semihalf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, Grzegorz Bernacki wrote: Hi Gregorz, It was good to finally meet you! >>> o In sbin/Makefile: we should have a distinct MK_NANDFS option >>> for use by the file system code. >=20 > - Is a separate MK_NANDFS knob really needed? Other filesystems don't = seem to > follow this route > - The sys/fs/nandfs is only included per kernel config option, other = userspace > components per MK_NAND > - Do you really think it is useful to have NAND framework built = without NANDFS > and vice versa, the FS without userland tools for it? I don't think it's *really* needed per se, but since nandfs is a useful file system on any kind of storage media, I can see that people may want the file system, but not the NAND framework bits. I thought that keeping the distinction between the 2 (as we do in the kernel with "options NANDFS" and "device nand") is probably a good thing. I leave it up to you. It's not of any real significance either way... Thanks for taking care of all the review comments! Cheers, --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CB41CA4E-2AC0-4C62-905A-B4BCDBDD240A>