On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 06:26:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:14:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > 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... OK, that makes sense. Actually, I should have made my "upstream first" more clear. I'd love to merge non-upstream features/new fs supports if the proposed new feature/new filesystem has been developmented actively and the community has generally made the agreement that will merge the new feature/filesystem when it's in a good shape. IOW, it's not some random new features/filesystems, which are very likely to be dropped in the half way. And providing such info in the patch is very helpful to reviewers. > > > > Hence I ask that you merge bcachefs support to help the process of > > getting bcachefs suport upstream. Sure, bcachefs looks promising to me now :) > > /me notes that both Eryu and Dave have been willing to merge > surprisingly large quantities of code for XFS reflink and online fsck > long before either of those features landed in mainline, so I think it's Because I know you and the xfs commnity will work on it continuously and very unlikely make the new tests dead code :) Thanks, Eryu > perfectly fine to merge Kent's relatively small changes to enable > 'FSTYP=bcachefs'. > > (With all of Eryu's review comments fixed, obviously...) > > --D > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
