Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fscrypt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Victor Hsieh <victorhsieh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file
- From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:53:54 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20181221154714.GA26547@mit.edu>
- References: <20181219071420.GC2628@infradead.org> <20181219021953.GD31274@dastard> <20181219193005.GB6889@mit.edu> <20181219213552.GO6311@dastard> <20181220220158.GC2360@mit.edu> <20181221070447.GA21687@infradead.org> <20181221154714.GA26547@mit.edu>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:47:14AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Linus --- we're going round and round, and I don't think this is
> really a technical dispute at this point, but rather an aesthetics
> one. Will you be willing to accept my pull request for a feature
> which is being shippped on millions of Android phones, has been out
> for review for months, and for which, if we *really* need to add
> uselessly complicated interface later, we can do that? It's always
> been the case for internal Kernel interfaces not to add code "just in
> case" it's useful, but rather when a user turns up. I argue we should
> be doing the same thing for user-space visible interfaces.
To look at it another way, this is an aesthetic dispute in which all those
who have offered opinions from outside Google -- myself, Dave Chinner &
Christoph all really dislike this interface. I'd be happy to discuss
alternative interfaces, particularly ones which allow for the current
internal implementation, but I think this interface is really bad.
In contrast to "we'll just fix it up later" (which usually applies
to in-kernel interfaces), we have a policy of not breaking userspace,
so accepting this interface means setting it in stone. We should get
it right.
[Index of Archives]
[linux Cryptography]
[Asterisk App Development]
[PJ SIP]
[Gnu Gatekeeper]
[IETF Sipping]
[Info Cyrus]
[ALSA User]
[Fedora Linux Users]
[Linux SCTP]
[DCCP]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[Deep Creek Hot Springs]
[Yosemite Campsites]
[ISDN Cause Codes]