Please stop sending these emails to me and remove me from the recipient list? ! Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Jul 2023, at 02:27, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > >>> 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. > > 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. >
