From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E85A963C3 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 12:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bf078d5f33so8128555ad.3 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1694091469; x=1694696269; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:references:cc:to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:sender :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dpAncpsnxY7aC1ou9acM0h7ym6Wf8QSElbvjg5hra5A=; b=YqiZn8YsGzivopt2mlAqW4enSi+4YuzNu9k7nNE2SrQ40iIYeTCCnh/Mzp8t9HrMQj 1oHyItCFfwNe3nXfpVz9YXDVKfjnGANzkDIzW5ZNgd8TA3YUxZYZWGu+kWB8zS6lVVRE /0XSP9AF7NoJfQjxl92pBIWa4PoRNPr0J8HrtyLUsRnJC3uk1RZoVZYSGKGt28DP8Cyi Ftnd+fCe+jupVVOky4sSNkImalLjq4C3D5XtQTk434nnXxCtHGU/bIk/SrsiXKKJRc2W Tl9bM+kalUP16F4rfnmFp3R1xo4LRKFEVzoZ3aPmak+IwV/KtMMp4IVWPeepwW3lR5vf vJ/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1694091469; x=1694696269; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:references:cc:to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dpAncpsnxY7aC1ou9acM0h7ym6Wf8QSElbvjg5hra5A=; b=NRcCEPFmo0cgGSIw4p6TSQp7TMMCT6zJiizxI4oNlYSzx0/tHtMPkAYNuTPpoNQVOt Vc1pIuCj/nqJYiilwj9rApJMXIlZpiE3YS+AnDendJmD7c16OnlzpgrWEtz5Tu43kRVh 1FjFflu8NwuVcIhQRq71TVxOWuKOprXdoRCPjOk2H7cV0ssXM2epFhNMSr3nuiF8lBGi 6uwA1PKk+rSauYYQDdrBi3++IqKbFomdpY72hOhXysa6VtrECZPAgC3lfQmb0g/civ5d h2eHlFotXgWf2Q97URc1hA+X54u7ORld9xCMSVxz7Nf8parolWqC2X+1VpaxHVFe9SK+ D/fA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxq1+b2K0ne0S/WGBD523+8a7W83PNEqhz/ZfunEoYwQs7RUUcv rfQXsBb7j9FcJJ6K7thY2Cc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHAe8UshzC+ci2VJWs1XhLXI14inSCq20rj6Saz8wM90SJzwKqtmMYRcTiJwoBMCIX9HIxUuA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:db12:b0:1bc:28a8:f856 with SMTP id m18-20020a170902db1200b001bc28a8f856mr22601053plx.47.1694091469006; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c? ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t11-20020a170902a5cb00b001bfd92ec592sm12738065plq.292.2023.09.07.05.57.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2023 05:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <0ece94aa-141e-564c-f43c-2d6d4b9e61c4@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 05:57:47 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thorsten Leemhuis , Christian Brauner Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Steven Rostedt , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <8718a8a3-1e62-0e2b-09d0-7bce3155b045@roeck-us.net> <20230906215327.18a45c89@gandalf.local.home> <20230906225139.6ffe953c@gandalf.local.home> <20230907-kauern-kopfkissen-d8147fb40469@brauner> From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS/KERNEL SUMMIT] Trust and maintenance of file systems In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/7/23 04:18, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 07.09.23 12:29, Christian Brauner wrote: >>> So why can't that work similarly for unmaintained file systems? We could >>> even establish the rule that Linus should only apply patches to some >>> parts of the kernel if the test suite for unmaintained file systems >>> succeeded without regressions. And only accept new file system code if a >> >> Reading this mail scared me. > > Sorry about that, I can fully understand that. It's just that some > statements in this thread sounded a whole lot like "filesystems want to > opt-out of the no regression rule" to me. That's why I at some point > thought I had to speak up. > >> The list of reiserfs bugs alone is crazy. > > Well, we regularly remove drivers or even support for whole archs > without getting into conflict with the "no regressions" rule, so I'd say > that should be possible for file systems as well. > > And I think for reiserfs we are on track with that. > > But what about hfsplus? From hch's initial mail of this thread it sounds > like that is something users would miss. So removing it without a very > strong need[1] seems wrong to me. That's why I got involved in this > discussion. > The original mail also suggested that there would be essentially no means to create a hfsplus file system in Linux. That would mean it would, for all practical purposes, be untestable. However: $ sudo apt-get install hfsprogs $ truncate -s 64M filesystem.hfsplus $ mkfs.hfsplus filesystem.hfsplus Initialized filesystem.hfsplus as a 64 MB HFS Plus volume $ file filesystem.hfsplus filesystem.hfsplus: Macintosh HFS Extended version 4 data last mounted by: '10.0', created: Thu Sep 7 05:41:21 2023, last modified: Thu Sep 7 12:41:21 2023, last checked: Thu Sep 7 12:41:7 So I am not really sure I understand what the problem actually is. No a side note, the crash I observed with ntfs3 was introduced by commit a4f64a300a29 ("ntfs3: free the sbi in ->kill_sb"). Guenter