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:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:03:02 +0200
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
To:     Valdis =?utf-8?Q?Kl=C4=93tnieks?= <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc:     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: <20190830080302.bgfosew4rzc4og67@pali>
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
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <184209.1567120696@turing-police>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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@gmail.com