On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 07:25:38PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 04:13:15PM -0300, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 17:41, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No. This "cleaner version on the Rust side" is nothing of that sort; > > > this "readdir doesn't need any state that might be different for different > > > file instances beyond the current position, because none of our examples > > > have needed that so far" is a good example of the garbage we really do > > > not need to deal with. > > > > What you're calling garbage is what Greg KH asked us to do, namely, > > not introduce anything for which there are no users. See a couple of > > quotes below. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2023081411-apache-tubeless-7bb3@gregkh/ > > The best feedback is "who will use these new interfaces?" Without that, > > it's really hard to review a patchset as it's difficult to see how the > > bindings will be used, right? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2023071049-gigabyte-timing-0673@gregkh/ > > And I'd recommend that we not take any more bindings without real users, > > as there seems to be just a collection of these and it's hard to > > actually review them to see how they are used... > > You've misunderstood Greg. He's saying (effectively) "No fs bindings > without a filesystem to use them". And Al, myself and others are saying > "Your filesystem interfaces are wrong because they're not usable for real > filesystems". And you're saying "But I'm not allowed to change them". > And that's not true. Change them to be laid out how a real filesystem > would need them to be. Note, I agree, change them to work our a "real" filesystem would need them and then, automatically, all of the "fake" filesystems like currently underway (i.e. tarfs) will work just fine too, right? That way we can drop the .c code for binderfs at the same time, also a nice win. thanks, greg k-h
