> > > >All that said - if there are people willing to do the work and it doesn't have a > negative impact on performance, code quality, maintenance complexity, etc. > then there isn't anything saying support can't be added - but it does seem like > it’s a lot of work, for little overall benefits to applications and the host users. > > Exactly. > > Patches in the block layer are trivial. This is running in production loads without > issues. I have tried to highlight the benefits in previous benefits and I believe > you understand them. > > Support for ZoneFS seems easy too. We have an early POC for btrfs and it > seems it can be done. We sign up for these 2. > > As for F2FS and dm-zoned, I do not think these are targets at the moment. If > this is the path we follow, these will bail out at mkfs time. > > If we can agree on the above, I believe we can start with the code that enables > the existing customers and build support for butrfs and ZoneFS in the next few > months. > > What do you think? I would suggest to do it in a single shot, i.e., a single patchset, which enables all the internal users in the kernel (including f2fs and others). That way end-users do not have to worry about the difference of PO2/NPO2 zones and it'll help reduce the burden on long-term maintenance.
