[RFC] fs: move super_block and inode definitions to central fs.h header

Yegor Yefremov yegorslists at googlemail.com
Mon Jan 25 00:40:26 PST 2016

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 08:55:22PM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Yegor Yefremov
>> <yegorslists at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Both super_block and inode are common to various file systems, so
>> > move them to the central place.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists at googlemail.com>
>> > ---
>> >  fs/ubifs/ubifs.h | 134 +------------------------------------------------------
>> >  include/fs.h     | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  2 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-)
>> I'm trying to port SquashFS to Barebox. SquashFS uses at least both
>> super_block structure as also inode structure. Does it make sense to
>> introduce include/linux/fs.h?
> I think not. Using include/linux/ for header files is good for stuff
> directly taken from the kernel, but I think the fs related structures in
> barebox are quite different from the ones in the kernel.

So you're OK about moving super_block and inode to inculde/fs?

>> What to do with struct timespec? It is defined in uapi part. Should it
>> go to include/linux/barebox-wrapper.h?
> barebox-wrapper.h contains no-op wrappers for stuff from the kernel that
> we want to keep around just to be able to compile kernel code with less
> modifications. struct timespec doesn't really fall into that category, I
> rather suggest its original place: include/linux/time.h

OK. Then I'll move it there. Should I also add timeval and related
marcos as well?


More information about the barebox mailing list