Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>