Alexander, On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 04.02.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Lukáš Czerner: > >> The fact is that the current patches are useless for anything other >> than proof-of-concept. Now you know more that needs to be done or > > > That's wrong. The patches already work. If you delete a file which isn't in > use by something else, the current contents will be wiped on traditional > harddrives. I assume that already fulfills more than 50% of use cases of > ordinary people. You are getting various feedback from people, that you seem to be ignoring. Al Viro, in his curmedgeonly way, points out that the problems are much deeper than you realize. He does not say so explicitly, but I imagine his point is that he does not want to see the kernel cluttered with "partial" solutions that will simply increase the maintenance burden in the long term, and leave bugs to be fixed further down the line. You seem not to be listening. Lukáš points out to you that getting a feature like this into the kernel is complex process. You seem unwilling to hear that, and still just want your partial solution. I tell you that discussions of APIs should CC linux-api, which I am now CCing into this thread, again, because, again, you're not listening to feedback. Nobody is asking for "high towers"; they just have their eyes on the big picture. And the people here are just "ordinary people" with a *lot* of experience dealing with kernel code (I exclude myself) . They see many complexities that you don't. Getting intersting features into the kernel requires a lot of work, and careful listening. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface", http://blog.man7.org/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
