On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 11:07:21 +1000, Dave Chinner said: > Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. You can easily co-ordinate > out of tree contributions through a github tree, or a tree on > kernel.org, etc. Well.. I'm not personally wedded to the staging tree. I'm just interested in getting a driver done and upstreamed with as little pain as possible. :) Is there any preference for github versus kernel.org? I can set up a github tree on my own, no idea who needs to do what for a kernel.org tree. Also, this (from another email of yours) was (at least to me) the most useful thing said so far: > 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. All of which are now on the to-do list, thanks. Now one big question: Should I heave all the vfat stuff overboard and make a module that *only* does exfat, or is there enough interest in an extended FAT module that does vfat and extfat, in which case the direction should be to re-align this module's code with vfat? > That's the choice you have to make now: listen to the reviewers > saying "resolve the fundamental issues before goign any further", Well... *getting* a laundry list of what the reviewers see as the fundamental issues is the first step in resolving them ;)
Attachment:
pgpIlHFEvn0UH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
