On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:03:28AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > I suspect that this is one of those catch-22 situations: distros > > > > are going to enable every feature under the sun. That doesn't mean > > > > that anyone is actually _using_ them these days. > > > > I think the value of filesystem code is not just a question of how > > often it gets executed -- it's also about retaining access to the data > > collected in archives, museums, galleries etc. that is inevitably held > > in old formats. > > That's an argument for adding support to tar, not for maintaining > read/write support. > I rather think it's an argument for collaboration between the interested parties upstream (inluding tar developers). As I see it, the question is, what kind of "upstream" is best for that? > > > We need to much more proactive about dropping support for > > > unmaintained filesystems that nobody is ever fixing despite the > > > constant stream of corruption- and deadlock- related bugs reported > > > against them. > > > > IMO, a stream of bug reports is not a reason to remove code (it's a > > reason to revert some commits). > > > > Anyway, that stream of bugs presumably flows from the unstable kernel > > API, which is inherently high-maintenance. It seems that a stable API > > could be more appropriate for any filesystem for which the on-disk > > format is fixed (by old media, by unmaintained FLOSS implementations > > or abandoned proprietary implementations). > > You've misunderstood. Google have decided to subject the entire kernel > (including obsolete unmaintained filesystems) to stress tests that it's > never had before. IOW these bugs have been there since the code was > merged. There's nothing to back out. There's no API change to blame. > It's always been buggy and it's never mattered before. > I see. Thanks for providing that background. > It wouldn't be so bad if Google had also decided to fund people to fix > those bugs, but no, they've decided to dump them on public mailing lists > and berate developers into fixing them. > Those bugs, if moved from kernel to userspace, would be less harmful, right?
