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 08:40:06 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Valdis =?utf-8?Q?Kl=C4=93tnieks?= <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging
Message-ID: <20190830154006.GB30863@infradead.org>
References: <20190828160817.6250-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20190829205631.uhz6jdboneej3j3c@pali>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190829205631.uhz6jdboneej3j3c@pali>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:56:31PM +0200, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> 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.

Not only not useful, but having another one is actively harmful, as
people might actually accidentally used it for classic fat.

But what I'm really annoyed at is this whole culture of just dumping
some crap into staging and hoping it'll sort itself out.  Which it
won't.  We'll need a dedidcated developer spending some time on it
and just get it into shape, and having it in staging does not help
with that at all - it will get various random cleanup that could
be trivially scripted, but that is rarely the main issue with any
codebase.