On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:23:03AM -0800, Amy Parker wrote: > > Kernel development newcomer here. I've begun creating a concept for a > > new filesystem, and ideally once it's completed, rich, and stable I'd > > try to get it into the kernel. > > > > What would be the process for this? I'd assume a patch sequence, but > > they'd all be dependent on each other, and sending in tons of > > dependent patches doesn't sound like a great idea. I've seen requests > > for pulls, but since I'm new here I don't really know what to do. > > Hi Amy, > > Writing a new filesystem is fun! Everyone should do it. > > Releasing a filesystem is gut-churning. You're committing to a filesystem > format that has to be supported for ~ever. I'm bored and need something to dedicate myself to as a long-term commitment. > > Supporting a new filesystem is a weighty responsibility. People are > depending on you to store their data reliably. And they demand boring > and annoying features like xattrs, acls, support for time after 2038. > > We have quite a lot of actively developed filesystems for users to choose > from already -- ext4, btrfs, xfs are the main three. So you're going > to face a challenge persuading people to switch. > Yeah, understandable. > Finally, each filesystem represents a (small) maintainance burden to > people who need to make changes that cross all filesystems. So it'd > be nice to have a good justification for why we should include that > cost. Alright, I'll keep that in mind. > > Depending exactly what your concept is, it might make more sense to > make it part of an existing filesystem. Or develop it separately > and have an existing filesystem integrate it. That's what other people have suggested as well, so I'll start considering trying to add any features I come up with into other filesystems as well. > > Anyway, I've been at this for twenty years, so maybe I'm just grouchy > about new filesystems. By all means work on it and see if it makes > sense, but there's a fairly low probability that it gets merged. Alright. Thanks for the advice! Best regards, Amy Parker (she/her/hers)
