On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:41:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:39:55AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:23:40PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Can we please just review the damn thing and get it into the proper > > > tree? That whole concept of staging file systems just has been one > > > fricking disaster, including Greg just moving not fully reviewed ones > > > over like erofs just because he feels like it. I'm getting sick and > > > tired of this scheme. > > > > For this filesystem, it's going to be a _lot_ of work before that can > > happen, and I'd really like to have lots of people help out with it > > instead of it living in random github trees for long periods of time. > > Did you actually look at the thing instead of blindly applying some > pile of crap? > > It basically is a reimplementation of fs/fat/ not up to kernel standards > with a few indirections thrown in to also support exfat. So no amount > of work on this codebase is really going to bring us forward. Instead > someone how can spend a couple days on this and actually has file > systems to test it just needs to bring the low-level format bits over > to our well tested fs/fat codebase instead of duplicating it. 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. 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 :) thanks, greg k-h
