From: David Sterba <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Konstantin Komarov <email@example.com> Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: NTFS read-write driver GPL implementation by Paragon Software. Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:06:42 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200815190642.GZ2026@twin.jikos.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Konstantin Komarov wrote: > This patch adds NTFS Read-Write driver to fs/ntfs3. > > Having decades of expertise in commercial file systems development and huge > test coverage, we at Paragon Software GmbH want to make our contribution to > the Open Source Community by providing implementation of NTFS Read-Write > driver for the Linux Kernel. > > This is fully functional NTFS Read-Write driver. Current version works with > NTFS(including v3.1) normal/compressed/sparse files and supports journal replaying. > > We plan to support this version after the codebase once merged, and add new > features and fix bugs. For example, full journaling support over JBD will be > added in later updates. > > The patch is too big to handle it within an e-mail body, so it is available to download > on our server: https://dl.paragon-software.com/ntfs3/ntfs3.patch The way you submit the driver does not meet significant number of requirements documented in https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html . so this may lead to ignoring the patch as this puts the burden on the kernel community to make the merge somehow happen. I don't see kernel involvement from Paragon, so let me build our half of the bridge. As I reckon, there is interest to have NTFS implementation that's better than the existing FUSE based support by NTFS-3G (namely performance), so let me propose something that might lead to merging the patch eventually. 1. check existing support in kernel There is fs/ntfs with read-only support from Tuxera, last change in the git tree is 3 years ago. The driver lacks read-write support so there's not 100% functionality duplication but there's still driver for the same filesystem. I don't know what's the feature parity, how much the in-kernel driver is used (or what are business relations of Tuxera and Paragon), compared to the FUSE-based driver, but ideally there's just one NTFS driver in linux kernel. The question I'd ask: - what are users of current fs/ntfs driver going to lose, if the driver is going to be completely replaced by your driver If the answer is 'nothing' then, the straightfowrad plan is to just replace it. Otherwise, we'll have to figure that out. 2. split the patch One patch of 27k lines of code is way too much to anybody to look at. As an example, what worked for the recent EXFAT support, send each new file as a patch. This will pass the mailinglist size filters and keep the patches logically separated, so eg. there are smaller patches implementing interaction with VFS (on the inode or directory level) and leaving out the other internal stuff of the filesystem. I'm counting about 20 files, that's acceptable. The last patch, or maybe a separate patch, adds the actual build and config-time support. The situation is a bit more complicated as there's an existing driver and I don't see a clear way how to do the transition from 2 implementations (one intermediate) to just one in the final state. We have that already with the old VFAT and new EXFAT drivers, and it's solved on the module level. Just one can be loaded (AFAIK). The same could be done here but it puts some burden on users to know what driver to load to get the expected set of features. 3. determine support status You state intentions to work on the driver and there's a new entry in MAINTAINERS file with 'Supported', so that's a good sign that it's not just one-time dump of code. Fixing bugs or adding functionality is expected. 4. development git tree Once the filesystem is merged, you'd be getting mails from people running eg. static checkers, build tests, sending cleanups or other tree-wide changes. The entry in MAINTAINER file does not point to any git tree, so that's not clear to me what's the expected way to get the fixes to Linus' tree or where are people supposed to look for 'is this fixed already'. There's maybe more I missed, but hopefully HTH. d.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-15 21:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-08-14 12:29 Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-14 13:17 ` Nikolay Borisov 2020-08-14 13:40 ` David Sterba 2020-08-20 9:26 ` Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-20 10:59 ` Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-14 14:08 ` Aurélien Aptel 2020-08-20 10:20 ` Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-14 15:30 ` Aurélien Aptel 2020-08-20 10:38 ` Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-15 19:06 ` David Sterba [this message] 2020-08-16 0:42 ` Matthew Wilcox 2020-08-20 10:48 ` Konstantin Komarov 2020-08-16 7:56 ` Pali Rohár
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200815190642.GZ2026@twin.jikos.cz \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] fs: NTFS read-write driver GPL implementation by Paragon Software.' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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).