RE: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

From: Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Leonidas P. Papadakos" <papadakospan@gmail.com>
Cc: "zajec5@gmail.com" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:55:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <afd62ae457034c3fbc4f2d38408d359d@paragon-software.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whfeq9gyPWK3yao6cCj7LKeU3vQEDGJ3rKDdcaPNVMQzQ@mail.gmail.com>

> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 9:07 PM
> 
> > This driver is already in a much better feature state than the old ntfs driver from 2001.
> 
> If the new ntfs code has acks from people - and it sounds like it did
> get them - and Paragon is expected to be the maintainer of it, then I
> think Paragon should just make a git pull request for it.
> 
> That's assuming that it continues to be all in just fs/ntfs3/ (plus
> fs/Kconfig, fs/Makefile and MAINTAINERS entries and whatever
> documentation) and there are no other system-wide changes. Which I
> don't think it had.
>
Hi Linus! Great to hear your feedback and clarifications on our ntfs3 code.
Greatly appreciated.
From our side, we can confirm that we will be maintaining this implementation.
Also, this is planned to be in fs/ntfs3 at this point, at least for now - until the code
and implementation becomes known and trusted within community. And then
we can discuss if it should replace the fs/ntfs and when it's convenient to do.
>
> We simply don't have anybody to funnel new filesystems - the fsdevel
> mailing list is good for comments and get feedback, but at some point
> somebody just needs to actually submit it, and that's not what fsdevel
> ends up doing.
>
Thanks for this clarification as well. This piece of infromation has not been really 
clear for us until now.
We've just sent the 27th patch series which fixes to the buildability against
current linux-next. And we'll need several days to prepare a proper pull request
before sending it to you.
 
> The argument that "it's already in a much better state than the old
> ntfs driver" may not be a very strong technical argument (not because
> of any Paragon problems - just because the old ntfs driver is not
> great), but it _is_ a fairly strong argument for merging the new one
> from Paragon.
> 
> And I don't think there has been any huge _complaints_ about the code,
> and I don't think there's been any sign that being outside the kernel
> helps.
> 
>                Linus