* Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? @ 2019-08-10 22:25 Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 0:50 ` Matthew Wilcox 2019-08-11 7:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-10 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Viro; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, David Howells, linux-fsdevel Hi Al, I've been trying to get the vboxsf fs code upstream for 1.5 years now, it seems (to me) that the main problem is that no-one has time to review it. You're reviewed it a couple of times and David Howells has reviewed it 2 times. Al reviews have lead to various improvments and have definitely been useful, so thank you for that. But ATM, since posting v12 of the patch, it has again been quiet for 2 months again. Since this driver is already being used as addon / our of tree driver by various distros, I would really like to get it into mainline, to make live easier for distros and to make sure that they use the latest version. Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? Regards, Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-10 22:25 Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-11 0:50 ` Matthew Wilcox 2019-08-11 13:36 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 7:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2019-08-11 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans de Goede Cc: Alexander Viro, Greg Kroah-Hartman, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:25:03AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > But ATM, since posting v12 of the patch, it has again been quiet for > 2 months again. Since this driver is already being used as addon / > our of tree driver by various distros, I would really like to get it > into mainline, to make live easier for distros and to make sure that > they use the latest version. fwiw, v12 never made it to the list. 0/1 did, but 1/1 didn't. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 0:50 ` Matthew Wilcox @ 2019-08-11 13:36 ` Hans de Goede 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-11 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Alexander Viro, Greg Kroah-Hartman, David Howells, linux-fsdevel Hi, On 8/11/19 2:50 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:25:03AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> But ATM, since posting v12 of the patch, it has again been quiet for >> 2 months again. Since this driver is already being used as addon / >> our of tree driver by various distros, I would really like to get it >> into mainline, to make live easier for distros and to make sure that >> they use the latest version. > > fwiw, v12 never made it to the list. 0/1 did, but 1/1 didn't. Hmm, looks like you are right, weird. I will resend v12 right away. Regards, Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-10 22:25 Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 0:50 ` Matthew Wilcox @ 2019-08-11 7:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans de Goede; +Cc: Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:25:03AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Al, > > I've been trying to get the vboxsf fs code upstream for 1.5 years now, > it seems (to me) that the main problem is that no-one has time to > review it. You're reviewed it a couple of times and David Howells > has reviewed it 2 times. Al reviews have lead to various improvments > and have definitely been useful, so thank you for that. > > But ATM, since posting v12 of the patch, it has again been quiet for > 2 months again. Since this driver is already being used as addon / > our of tree driver by various distros, I would really like to get it > into mainline, to make live easier for distros and to make sure that > they use the latest version. > > Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved > anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code > in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it > for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-08-11 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Hans de Goede, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved > > anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code > > in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it > > for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? > > I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is a bad idea that should not be repeated. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 13:43 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-12 11:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-11 9:00 ` Gao Xiang 2019-08-29 15:05 ` Hans de Goede 2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hans de Goede, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:43:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved > > > anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code > > > in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it > > > for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? > > > > I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. > > We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is > a bad idea that should not be repeated. Lustre was a mistake. erofs is better in that there are active developers working to get it out of staging. We would also need that here for this to be successful. Hans, is it just review that is keeping this from being merged or is there "real work" that has to be done? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 13:43 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 13:49 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-12 11:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-11 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Christoph Hellwig Cc: Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel Hi, On 8/11/19 9:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:43:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved >>>> anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code >>>> in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it >>>> for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? >>> >>> I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. >> >> We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is >> a bad idea that should not be repeated. > > Lustre was a mistake. erofs is better in that there are active > developers working to get it out of staging. We would also need that > here for this to be successful. > > Hans, is it just review that is keeping this from being merged or is > there "real work" that has to be done? AFAIK it is just the reveiw which is keeping this from being merged. During the first few revision Al Viro made some very good suggestions which have all been addressed, v10 was reviewed by David Howell, and the main thing to fix for that was switching over to the new mountfd APIs, v11 was also revieded by David and had some minor issues with the use of the new mountfd APIs. Those were all addressed for v12. So currently the TODO list for this fs code is empty. Regards, Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 13:43 ` Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-11 13:49 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans de Goede Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 03:43:01PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/11/19 9:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:43:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved > > > > > anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code > > > > > in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it > > > > > for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? > > > > > > > > I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. > > > > > > We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is > > > a bad idea that should not be repeated. > > > > Lustre was a mistake. erofs is better in that there are active > > developers working to get it out of staging. We would also need that > > here for this to be successful. > > > > Hans, is it just review that is keeping this from being merged or is > > there "real work" that has to be done? > > AFAIK it is just the reveiw which is keeping this from being merged. > > During the first few revision Al Viro made some very good suggestions > which have all been addressed, v10 was reviewed by David Howell, and the > main thing to fix for that was switching over to the new mountfd APIs, > v11 was also revieded by David and had some minor issues with the use > of the new mountfd APIs. Those were all addressed for v12. So currently > the TODO list for this fs code is empty. Then in that case it doesn't sound like putting it in staging makes any sense. It should just be merged to the "correct" place right away as nothing is left to be done on it. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 13:43 ` Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-12 11:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-12 13:44 ` Gao Xiang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-08-12 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Hans de Goede, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:50:42AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > Lustre was a mistake. erofs is better in that there are active > developers working to get it out of staging. We would also need that > here for this to be successful. I think erofs could have been handled much easier with a bunch of iterations of normal submissions. Bet yes, the biggest problem was lustre. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-12 11:22 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-08-12 13:44 ` Gao Xiang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Gao Xiang @ 2019-08-12 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Hans de Goede, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:22:47AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:50:42AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Lustre was a mistake. erofs is better in that there are active > > developers working to get it out of staging. We would also need that > > here for this to be successful. > > I think erofs could have been handled much easier with a bunch of > iterations of normal submissions. Bet yes, the biggest problem was > lustre. (I am trying...to add some word on this...) As a new opensource file system, an unavoidable thing is trying to get people opinions on this... It could be better to prove that's an interesting / useful stuff for community so that we can do more actively with fun... (Hopefully we got some attentions and no silence at first... thanks to Richard Weinberger, Pavel Machek, Joey Pabalinas... [1] p.s. I have no idea whether Richard still has some interest in it... but EROFS is ready now...) At first, I submitted EROFS to linuxfs mailing list at the very early stage, although the on-disk format is almost fixed, but I have to admit that there were still stuffes needing to be done (Note that I updated LZ4 (lib/lz4) later as well [2].) we weren't quite sure that such an unclean/incomplete stuff was quite good for better review at that time, and it was also lack of implementation of some core runtime concepts such as decompression inplace (which was only in my mind without real code) But we think this direction is practical and we want to do iterations by time. Also, we noticed there are many new stuffs such as fscontext, XArray, multi-page bvec, which were introduced by time, we hope to keep up with the mainline kernel... Staging seems to be such a place for an incomplete but workable stuff after I noticed what zram did before, therefore I took a try and thanks Greg as well... Thanks to merging into staging, many checkpatch/styling/functional issues have been fixed by contributers... we can also have chance to test in linux-next for many linux versions... and it's much easier for us to do latest EROFS backport to 4.19LTS for our products... On the other hand, since I have a paid job for a commerical company, I need to apply EROFS unpainfully to our products. And I got many useful running logs from our internal beta users, which helps us make EROFS stable... Nowadays, almost all on-service HUAWEI mobile phones on the market have been integrated with EROFS... Now EROFS is ready for review, and the main code of EROFS is about 7KLOC... Sadly, it still haven't gotten some explicit external ACKs till now... we don't know how we should do next to make a difference... perhaps I thought it is relatively long thus I spilted into 24 individual patches... We really hope that it can be merged into fs/ in 5.4 so that we can improve it even further and gain more users... Thanks, Gao Xiang [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1670077.cnVahIradn@blindfold/ [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/lib/lz4 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-08-11 9:00 ` Gao Xiang 2019-08-29 15:05 ` Hans de Goede 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Gao Xiang @ 2019-08-11 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Hans de Goede, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel Hi hch, On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:43:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved > > > anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code > > > in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it > > > for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? > > > > I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. > > We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is > a bad idea that should not be repeated. I had no intention to join this topic. However, out of curiousty, I'd like to hear your opinion about EROFS. I personally think that's not so bad? EROFS is designed for the specific goal, and it is proven that it has much better performance than other compress filesystems even uncompressed filesystems with proper hardware combinations. And we have an active team (with paid job) and some other companies (primary in Android scope) have contacted with me in private about using this as well. We are doing our best efforts on moving out of staging, and I personally think the code seems not bad... Can you give me some more hints in advance? Thank you very much, Gao Xiang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 9:00 ` Gao Xiang @ 2019-08-29 15:05 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-30 16:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-29 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig, Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel Hi all, On 11-08-19 09:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> Since I do not see the lack of reviewing capacity problem get solved >>> anytime soon, I was wondering if you are ok with putting the code >>> in drivers/staging/vboxsf for now, until someone can review it and ack it >>> for moving over to sf/vboxsf ? >> >> I have no objection to that if the vfs developers do not mind. > > We had really bad experiences with fs code in staging. I think it is > a bad idea that should not be repeated. So after resolving the problem with the patch not making it through to the list because of the patch-size, v12 got reviewed (thank you for that Christoph) and I did a v13. Then there was some discussion about read cache-coherency vs writes done on the host side underneath us (the guest) and in the end Christoph agreed that what was done in v13 was as good as it would get given the limitations of the shared folder API offered by the VirtualBox hypervisor, but Christoph did request to add a big comment explaining these issues in more detail. So I posted a v14, adding the big comment and addressing 2 very minor other issue spotted by Christoph, that was 10 days ago and things have gotten quiet again since. I realiz that 10 days is not very long but for previous revisions I have been waiting upto 60 days sometimes and the exfat in staging discussion reminded me of this. So what is the plan going forward for vboxsf now? Regards, Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? 2019-08-29 15:05 ` Hans de Goede @ 2019-08-30 16:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2019-08-30 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans de Goede Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Alexander Viro, David Howells, linux-fsdevel On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:05:49PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > So what is the plan going forward for vboxsf now? ping Al and/or Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-30 16:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-08-10 22:25 Merging virtualbox shared-folder VFS driver through drivers/staging? Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 0:50 ` Matthew Wilcox 2019-08-11 13:36 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 7:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 7:43 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-11 7:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-11 13:43 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-11 13:49 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2019-08-12 11:22 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-12 13:44 ` Gao Xiang 2019-08-11 9:00 ` Gao Xiang 2019-08-29 15:05 ` Hans de Goede 2019-08-30 16:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).