On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 03:37:49AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? The problem is that EROFS has been there for a year and I sent v1-v8 patches here, You didn't review or reply it once until now. And I have no idea what is the relationship between EROFS and the current exfat implementation. Thanks, Gao Xiang _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
