JFFS2 mount time
joern at wohnheim.fh-wedel.de
Sat Dec 18 21:44:51 EST 2004
On Sat, 18 December 2004 20:48:50 +0000, Gareth Bult (Encryptec) wrote:
> Like I said, hacked to work [for me] and not to look pretty.
> To be honest what's there will do me for now .. although I'd like to
> clean it up a little when I get time.
> fyi; don't confuse the old and new code.
Sure. I had a look at tkdiff and there was ~50% unchanged code.
"This code ain't pretty." didn't mean "You sh*thead are stupid and
cannot create decent code." It was more like "It still ain't pretty,
although you already improved it."
> > o Coding style (Lindent?)
> Whatever was there already.
> > o Function length
> My functions are shorter than the ones that were there, lots can be
> cleaned up here.
> > o #ifdef MODULE
> .. ? I only use it as a module, not of this code was touched.
> > o parameters have an insane interface
> .. again , parameters and interfaces are all from the original with the
> exception of a couple of new routines which mirror existing parameter
> > o ro-devices. the same can be achieved with chmod.
> Again, not touched this.
Yep. Those five point were the obvious stuff I could find in five
minutes. Fixing them takes a lot more than five minutes and changing
the parameter interface basically means copying the thing and fixing
the new one.
I did the same with slram/phram. The slram interface was different
for module/non-module built and insane once you had more than a single
device. Mtdblock looks quite similar and seems to need the same cure.
So whatever you can improve, please do.
It's just what we asked for, but not what we want!
More information about the linux-mtd