On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:50:19AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > I did try just that, a few years ago, and gave up on it. I don't think > it can be added to the existing vfat code base but I am willing to be > proven wrong. And what exactly was the problem? > > Now that we have the specs, it might be easier, and the vfat spec is a > subset of the exfat spec, but to get stuff working today, for users, > it's good to have it in staging. We can do the normal, "keep it in > stable, get a clean-room implementation merged like usual, and then > delete the staging version" three step process like we have done a > number of times already as well. > > I know the code is horrible, but I will gladly take horrible code into > staging. If it bothers you, just please ignore it. That's what staging > is there for :) And then after a while you decide it's been long enough and force move it out of staging like the POS erofs code? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
