From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:49880 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933155AbeFOPFV (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:05:21 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com ([209.85.214.70]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1fTqHw-0001P8-NU for linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:05:20 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id 8-v6so2066670itz.4 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:05:17 -0500 From: Seth Forshee To: Aleksa Sarai Cc: James Bottomley , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks , Christian Brauner Subject: Re: shiftfs status and future development Message-ID: <20180615150517.GG30028@ubuntu-xps13> References: <20180614184448.GC30028@ubuntu-xps13> <20180615145438.pf6g7u35lt52aapw@gordon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180615145438.pf6g7u35lt52aapw@gordon> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:54:38AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2018-06-14, Seth Forshee wrote: > > I wanted to inquire about the current status of shiftfs and the plans > > for it moving forward. We'd like to have this functionality available > > for use in lxd, and I'm interesetd in helping with development (or > > picking up development if it's stalled). > > > > To start, is anyone still working on shiftfs or similar functionality? I > > haven't found it in any git tree on kernel.org, and as far as mailing > > list activity the last submission I can find is [1]. Is there anything > > newer than this? > > James Bottomley demoed the current status of shiftfs at the last Linux > Plumbers' Conference. Personally, it looked like some of the motivations > behind why we needed a shiftfs (and what it should look like) were lost > over time, and the result is that the patchset mutated and has > effectively stalled development for over a year (as far as I know it > hasn't been posted again in over a year, and nobody is carrying it in > their tree). That's my impression too, which I was attempting to confirm with my mail :-) > I agree with Serge that if we want to restart its development someone > should write down what the requirements and goals are to avoid having a > patchset which mutates over many review cycles. I agree, though some evolution during review is inevitable. I just responed to Serge with some of our requirements, if you have some to add I'd love to see them. Thanks, Seth