[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aPbRKScRgkxUDYew@archie.me>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 07:17:45 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org, hch@....de, tytso@....edu,
willy@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org,
josef@...icpanda.com, sandeen@...deen.net, rgoldwyn@...e.com,
xiang@...nel.org, dsterba@...e.com, pali@...nel.org,
ebiggers@...nel.org, neil@...wn.name, amir73il@...il.com
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, cheol.lee@....com, jay.sim@....com,
gunho.lee@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ntfsplus: ntfs filesystem remake
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:07:38AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> Introduction
> ============
Can you write the documentation at least in
Documentation/filesystems/ntfsplus.rst?
> - Journaling support:
> ntfs3 does not provide full journaling support. It only implement journal
> replay[4], which in our testing did not function correctly. My next task
> after upstreaming will be to add full journal support to ntfsplus.
What's the plan for journaling? Mirroring the Windows implementation AFAIK?
For the timeline: I guess you plan to submit journaling patches right after
ntfsplus is merged (at least applied to the filesystem tree or direct PR to
Linus), or would it be done for the subsequent release cycle (6.n+1)?
Regarding stability: As it is a new filesystem, shouldn't it be marked
experimental (and be stabilized for a few cycles) first?
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists