On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 10:20:38PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:44:16PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > A small patch adding bcachefs support, and two other patches for consideration: > > As bcachefs is not upstream yet, I think we should re-visit bcachefs > support after it's in upstream. I disagree completely. I've been waiting for this to land for some time so I can actually run fstests against bcachefs easily to evaluate it's current state of stability and support. The plans are to get bcachefs merged upstream, and so having support already in fstests makes it much easier for reviewers and developers to actually run tests and find problems prior to merging. As an upstream developer and someone who will be reviewing bcachefs when it is next proposed for merge, I would much prefer to see extensive and long term fstests coverage *before* the code is even merged upstream. Given that filesystems take years to develop to the point where they are stable and ready for merge, saying "can't enable the test environment until it is merged upstream" is not very helpful. As a general principle, we want developers of new filesystems to start using fstests early in the development process of their filesystem. We should be encouraging new filesystems to be added to fstests, not saying "we only support upstream filesystems". If the filesystem plans to be merged upstream, then fstests support for that filesystem should be there long before the filesytsem is even proposed for merge. We need to help people get new filesystems upstream, not place arbitrary "not upstream so not supported" catch-22s in their way... Hence I ask that you merge bcachefs support to help the process of getting bcachefs suport upstream. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
