[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190830080302.bgfosew4rzc4og67@pali>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:03:02 +0200
From: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To: Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging
On Thursday 29 August 2019 19:18:16 Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:56:31 +0200, Pali Roh?r said:
>
> > I'm not really sure if this exfat implementation is fully suitable for
> > mainline linux kernel.
> >
> > In my opinion, proper way should be to implement exFAT support into
> > existing fs/fat/ code instead of replacing whole vfat/msdosfs by this
> > new (now staging) fat implementation.
>
> > In linux kernel we really do not need two different implementation of
> > VFAT32.
>
> This patch however does have one major advantage over "patch vfat to
> support exfat" - which is that the patch exists.
I understand that this is advantage...
> If somebody comes forward with an actual "extend vfat to do exfat" patch,
> we should at that point have a discussion about relative merits....
... but is this advantage such big that it should be merged even due to
"horrible" code quality and lot of code/functionality duplication?
In similar way there should be discussion about these pros and cons.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists