Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:35:06 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Valdis =?utf-8?Q?Kl=C4=93tnieks?= <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc:     Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging
Message-ID: <20190829233506.GT5281@sasha-vm>
References: <20190828160817.6250-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20190829205631.uhz6jdboneej3j3c@pali>
 <184209.1567120696@turing-police>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <184209.1567120696@turing-police>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 07:18:16PM -0400, 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.
>
>If somebody comes forward with an actual "extend vfat to do exfat" patch,
>we should at that point have a discussion about relative merits....

This patch going into staging doesn't necessarily mean that one day
it'll get moved to fs/exfat/. It's very possible that the approach would
instead be to use the staging code for reference, build this
functionality in fs/fat/, and kill off the staging code when it's not
needed anymore.

With regards to missing specs/docs/whatever - our main concern with this
release was that we want full interoperability, which is why the spec
was made public as-is without modifications from what was used
internally. There's no "secret sauce" that Microsoft is hiding here.

How about we give this spec/code time to get soaked and reviewed for a
bit, and if folks still feel (in a month or so?) that there are missing
bits of information related to exfat, I'll be happy to go back and try
to get them out as well.

--
Thanks,
Sasha