On Wed, 1 May 2019 03:14:23 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I do have problems with vfs.txt approach in general and I hope we end up > with per object type documents; however, that's completely orthogonal to > format conversion. IOW, I have no objections whatsoever to format switch > done first; any migration of e.g. dentry-related parts into a separate > document, with lifecycle explicitly documented and descriptions of > methods tied to that can just as well go on top of that. OK, great. That said, let's hold the format conversion for 5.3 (or *maybe* late-merge-window 5.2). It's a big set of patches to shovel in at this point, and while it's good work, it's not screamingly urgent. My suggestion would be to take Eric's stuff, it shouldn't be a problem to adjust to it. Sound good? Thanks, jon
