On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 03:14:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 07:49:43PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:36:49 +0100 > > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Thought I'd replied; apparently not... Anyway, the problem with those > > > is that there'd been a series of patches converting vfs.txt to new > > > format; I'm not sure what Jon is going to do with it, but these are > > > certain to conflict. I've no objections to the contents of changes, > > > but if that stuff is getting massive reformatting the first two > > > probably ought to go through Jon's tree. I can take the last two > > > at any point. > > > > > > Jon, what's the status of the format conversion? > > > > Last I saw, it seemed that you wanted changes in how things were done and > > that Tobin (added to CC) had stepped back. Tobin, are your thoughts on > > the matter different? I could try to shoehorn them in for 5.2 still, I > > guess, but perhaps the best thing to do is to just take Eric's patch, and > > the reformatting can work around it if need be. > > I can certainly apply Eric's series (or ACK it if we end up deciding to > feed it through your tree). > > Rereading my replies in that thread, I hadn't been clear back then and > I can see how that could've been created the wronng impression. Yes, I had stepped back. I thought from Al's comments that he didn't like the current content of vfs.txt Since the conversion set I did did not fundamentally change the content but just moved it to the source files it seemed like this set was a dead end. FWIW I don't think that a _simple_ conversion for vfs.txt to vfs.rst is useful if the VFS is to be re-documented. It isn't trivial to do if we want to make any use of RST features and if we do not want to then why bother converting it? > 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. I'd like to work on this but considering I don't know what I'm talking about and have to learn as I go this is a long project ... > I don't think that vfs.txt will survive in recognizable form in the long > run, but by all means, let's get the format conversion out of the way > first. And bits and pieces of contents will survive in the replacement > files when those appear. IMO vfs.txt is so outdated the conversion really needs to be done by someone that knows the VFS inside out. I am more than happy to take directions on this if there is something useful I can do. Cheers, Tobin.
