fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

Hi,

Recently, a couple of issues have been identified in fs/adfs:

1. Filename truncation may not work as it should, and Linus has
   apparently expressed a desire to kill this off.

2. Scanning the ADFS map for disc object fragments may mistakenly
   find free space fragments in addition to real disc object fragments,
   leading to chunks of free space appearing in files or directories.

No one has reported any issues with the filesystem module, so the
question has to be asked whether there are any users of this code?

I'm aware that there were some users about ten or more years ago.  I've
only touched it when problems have been reported to me that needed me
to investigate something, otherwise I haven't used it myself - so the
code largely just sits there, mostly untouched except for the odd
cross-filesystem patch.

The last "feature" patch was in 2011 by Stuart Swales (copied) adding
the filetype suffix to filenames.

That leads on to the question about whether this should be fixed in
mainline or whether we should put the code out of its misery and remove
it from the kernel.

Fixing both issues is fairly trivial, and I already have some fixes
available, along with some improvements to the rest of the code.
However, I see little point in pushing that upstream if the code is
not being used.

Searching the web, there does seem to be some interest on some forums,
but that dates from about three years ago, but it also seems that more
functional solutions (using fuse, with different format support) are
available.

Posting to Linux lists probably isn't the best way to find out whether
there are users of this, so if there are people involved in the Acorn
communities, please pass this on to more appropriate forums, thanks.
Please ensure that replies reach me as I don't monitor random web
forums for example (a reply on a web forum that I don't see is not
helpful.)

If I hear nothing positive towards keeping it, then I'll schedule
fs/adfs for deletion, probably for 5.3.

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

Hi,

Recently, a couple of issues have been identified in fs/adfs:

1. Filename truncation may not work as it should, and Linus has
   apparently expressed a desire to kill this off.

2. Scanning the ADFS map for disc object fragments may mistakenly
   find free space fragments in addition to real disc object fragments,
   leading to chunks of free space appearing in files or directories.

No one has reported any issues with the filesystem module, so the
question has to be asked whether there are any users of this code?

I'm aware that there were some users about ten or more years ago.  I've
only touched it when problems have been reported to me that needed me
to investigate something, otherwise I haven't used it myself - so the
code largely just sits there, mostly untouched except for the odd
cross-filesystem patch.

The last "feature" patch was in 2011 by Stuart Swales (copied) adding
the filetype suffix to filenames.

That leads on to the question about whether this should be fixed in
mainline or whether we should put the code out of its misery and remove
it from the kernel.

Fixing both issues is fairly trivial, and I already have some fixes
available, along with some improvements to the rest of the code.
However, I see little point in pushing that upstream if the code is
not being used.

Searching the web, there does seem to be some interest on some forums,
but that dates from about three years ago, but it also seems that more
functional solutions (using fuse, with different format support) are
available.

Posting to Linux lists probably isn't the best way to find out whether
there are users of this, so if there are people involved in the Acorn
communities, please pass this on to more appropriate forums, thanks.
Please ensure that replies reach me as I don't monitor random web
forums for example (a reply on a web forum that I don't see is not
helpful.)

If I hear nothing positive towards keeping it, then I'll schedule
fs/adfs for deletion, probably for 5.3.

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Stuart Swales]

On 04/04/2019 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently, a couple of issues have been identified in fs/adfs:
> 
> 1. Filename truncation may not work as it should, and Linus has
>    apparently expressed a desire to kill this off.
> 
> 2. Scanning the ADFS map for disc object fragments may mistakenly
>    find free space fragments in addition to real disc object fragments,
>    leading to chunks of free space appearing in files or directories.
> 
> No one has reported any issues with the filesystem module, so the
> question has to be asked whether there are any users of this code?
> 
> I'm aware that there were some users about ten or more years ago.  I've
> only touched it when problems have been reported to me that needed me
> to investigate something, otherwise I haven't used it myself - so the
> code largely just sits there, mostly untouched except for the odd
> cross-filesystem patch.
> 
> The last "feature" patch was in 2011 by Stuart Swales (copied) adding
> the filetype suffix to filenames.
> 
> That leads on to the question about whether this should be fixed in
> mainline or whether we should put the code out of its misery and remove
> it from the kernel.
> 
> Fixing both issues is fairly trivial, and I already have some fixes
> available, along with some improvements to the rest of the code.
> However, I see little point in pushing that upstream if the code is
> not being used.
> 
> Searching the web, there does seem to be some interest on some forums,
> but that dates from about three years ago, but it also seems that more
> functional solutions (using fuse, with different format support) are
> available.
> 
> Posting to Linux lists probably isn't the best way to find out whether
> there are users of this, so if there are people involved in the Acorn
> communities, please pass this on to more appropriate forums, thanks.
> Please ensure that replies reach me as I don't monitor random web
> forums for example (a reply on a web forum that I don't see is not
> helpful.)
> 
> If I hear nothing positive towards keeping it, then I'll schedule
> fs/adfs for deletion, probably for 5.3.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks Russell

Have posted on the RISC OS Open site. I imagine some people will
complain just because they can. Can't see a need for it in new kernels
myself; people can always use old systems if they need to get data off
old ADFS IDE drives like I had to.

Regards,

Stuart
-- 
Stuart Swales

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Stuart Swales]

On 04/04/2019 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently, a couple of issues have been identified in fs/adfs:
> 
> 1. Filename truncation may not work as it should, and Linus has
>    apparently expressed a desire to kill this off.
> 
> 2. Scanning the ADFS map for disc object fragments may mistakenly
>    find free space fragments in addition to real disc object fragments,
>    leading to chunks of free space appearing in files or directories.
> 
> No one has reported any issues with the filesystem module, so the
> question has to be asked whether there are any users of this code?
> 
> I'm aware that there were some users about ten or more years ago.  I've
> only touched it when problems have been reported to me that needed me
> to investigate something, otherwise I haven't used it myself - so the
> code largely just sits there, mostly untouched except for the odd
> cross-filesystem patch.
> 
> The last "feature" patch was in 2011 by Stuart Swales (copied) adding
> the filetype suffix to filenames.
> 
> That leads on to the question about whether this should be fixed in
> mainline or whether we should put the code out of its misery and remove
> it from the kernel.
> 
> Fixing both issues is fairly trivial, and I already have some fixes
> available, along with some improvements to the rest of the code.
> However, I see little point in pushing that upstream if the code is
> not being used.
> 
> Searching the web, there does seem to be some interest on some forums,
> but that dates from about three years ago, but it also seems that more
> functional solutions (using fuse, with different format support) are
> available.
> 
> Posting to Linux lists probably isn't the best way to find out whether
> there are users of this, so if there are people involved in the Acorn
> communities, please pass this on to more appropriate forums, thanks.
> Please ensure that replies reach me as I don't monitor random web
> forums for example (a reply on a web forum that I don't see is not
> helpful.)
> 
> If I hear nothing positive towards keeping it, then I'll schedule
> fs/adfs for deletion, probably for 5.3.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks Russell

Have posted on the RISC OS Open site. I imagine some people will
complain just because they can. Can't see a need for it in new kernels
myself; people can always use old systems if they need to get data off
old ADFS IDE drives like I had to.

Regards,

Stuart
-- 
Stuart Swales

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:44:24PM +0100, Stuart Swales wrote:
> On 04/04/2019 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> Have posted on the RISC OS Open site. I imagine some people will
> complain just because they can. Can't see a need for it in new kernels
> myself; people can always use old systems if they need to get data off
> old ADFS IDE drives like I had to.

If it's just grabbing old data, it's far better to do that with a
userspace tool which understands the ADFS layout (several exist).
The only good reason for keeping fs/adfs/ alive is if there's need to
continue to access data that lives on an ADFS filesystem and needs to
be read/written by both a RISC OS host and a Linux host.

Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:44:24PM +0100, Stuart Swales wrote:
> On 04/04/2019 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> Have posted on the RISC OS Open site. I imagine some people will
> complain just because they can. Can't see a need for it in new kernels
> myself; people can always use old systems if they need to get data off
> old ADFS IDE drives like I had to.

If it's just grabbing old data, it's far better to do that with a
userspace tool which understands the ADFS layout (several exist).
The only good reason for keeping fs/adfs/ alive is if there's need to
continue to access data that lives on an ADFS filesystem and needs to
be read/written by both a RISC OS host and a Linux host.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel