On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:01:58PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > That's simply not true. Number one, fsverity is not mandatory for all > file systems to implement. If XFS doesn't want to implement fscrypt > or fsverity, it doesn't have to. Number two, we're not *making* any > changes to the kernel code; nothing in mm/filemap.c, et. al. So > saying that we are making changes that are impacted by /everyone/ just > doesn't make any sense. Ted, I think you know yourself this isn't true. Whenever we added useful interface to one of the major file systems we had other pick it up, and that is a good thing because the last thing we need is fragmentation of interfaces. And even if that wasn't the case I don't think we should take short cuts, because even if an interface was just for a file system or two it still needs to be properly desgined. There is no reason to rush interfacs in, because everytime we have done that it has turned out to be a very bad idea in retrospective.
