On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 06:31:45AM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 07:54:10 +1000, Dave Chinner said: > > > The correct place for new filesystem review is where all the > > experienced filesystem developers hang out - that's linux-fsdevel, > > not the driver staging tree. > > So far everything's been cc'ed to linux-fsdevel, which has been spending > more time discussing unlikely() usage in a different filesystem. That's just noise - you'll get whitespace and other trivial review on any list you post a patch series for review. Go back and look at what other people have raised w.r.t. to that filesystem - on-disk format validation, re-implementation of largely generic code, lack of namespacing of functions leading to conflicts with generic/VFS functionality, etc. Review bandwidth for things like on-disk format definition and manipulation, consistency with other filesystems, efficient integration into the generic infrastructure, etc is limited. Everyone has to juggle that around the load they have for their own filesystem maintenance, and there's usually only bandwidth for a single filesystem at a time. Just be patient - trying to force the merging of code before there's even been consensus on fundamental architecture choices doesn't make things better for anyone. Merging incomplete filesystem code early in the development cycle has -always- been something we've regretted in the long run. We've learn this lesson many times before, yet we seem doomed to repeat it yet again... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
