RE: JFFS patch

I would be screaming a lot if we were not moving to JFFS2 ourselves. 
However this will take us a few months to accomplish. If there is any 
interest in JFFS and if someone is kind enough to point out the work TBD, I 
will take a shot.

At 12:48 PM 6/24/03 +0200, Mikael Starvik wrote:
>Even at Axis (the original copyright holder of JFFS1) we are now using
>JFFS2. I'll check if someone inhouse is interrested in keeping JFFS1
>maintained 2.6.
>
>PS. I tested JFFS1 in 2.5 a while ago and it seamed to kind of work after
>one small patch. But I guess that there is much more to be done to make
>it reliable. DS
>
>/Mikael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>David Woodhouse
>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:42 PM
>To: Alexander Viro
>Cc: Allen Curtis; Infradead Org; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: JFFS patch
>
>
>On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 11:35, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > It would be nice.  There are several ugly craps in there and I'd
> > rather see it gone than try and fix them...
>
>Me too -- I started cleaning up at one point and the result was JFFS2 :)
>
>So unless I hear anguished screams from a huge user base who are using it
>and not JFFS2 for reasons which they haven't yet reported as JFFS2 bugs, and
>someone also steps forward to clean it up for 2.6, I'll submit a patch to
>Linus to remove it in a couple of weeks time.
>
>--
>dwmw2
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in the
>body of a message to [email protected]



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/