On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:50:08PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On 13.07.2021 22:14, Al Viro wrote: > > To elaborate a bit - there's one case when I want it to go through > > vfs.git, and that's when there's an interference between something > > going on in vfs.git and the work done in filesystem. Other than > > that, I'm perfectly fine with maintainer sending pull request directly > > to Linus (provided that I hadn't spotted something obviously wrong > > in the series, of course, but that's not "I want it to go through > > vfs.git" - that's "I don't want it in mainline until such and such > > bug is resolved"). > > let me take this opportunity to ask about another filesystem. > > Would you advise to send pull req for the fs/ntfs3 directly to Linus? > > That is a pending filesystem that happens to be highly expected by many > Linux focused communities. > > > Paragon Software GmbH proved it's commitment by sending as many as 26 > versions on it's patchset. The last set was send early April: > > [PATCH v26 00/10] NTFS read-write driver GPL implementation by Paragon Software > https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=161738417018673&q=mbox > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/list/?series=460291 > > > I'd say there weren't any serious issues raised since then. > > One Tested-by, one maintenance question, one remainder, one clang-12 > issue [0] [1]. > > It seems this filesystem only needs: > 1. [Requirement] Adjusting to the meanwhile changed iov API [2] > 2. [Clean up] Using fs/iomap/ helpers [3] Why haven't those things been done and the patches resubmitted for review? Nothing we can do from our side when the developers don't want to submit a new series, right? thanks, greg k-h
