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:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:56:40 +0200
From:   'Greg KH' <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com>,
        'Valdis Kletnieks' <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexander.levin@microsoft.com,
        sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to
Message-ID: <20190917045640.GA2055638@kroah.com>
References: <CGME20190917025738epcas1p1f1dd21ca50df2392b0f84f0340d82bcd@epcas1p1.samsung.com>
 <003601d56d03$aa04fa00$fe0eee00$@samsung.com>
 <003701d56d04$470def50$d529cdf0$@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <003701d56d04$470def50$d529cdf0$@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:02:01PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> We are excited to see this happening and would like to state that we appreciate
> time and
> effort which people put into upstreaming exfat. Thank you!
> 
> However, if possible, can we step back a little bit and re-consider it? We
> would prefer to see upstream the code which we are currently using in
> our products - sdfat - as this can be mutually benefitial from various
> points of view.

What is "different" in it from the code that is currently in linux-next?
What is supported "better"?  The code we have today seems to work for
people, so what are we missing here?

Also, submitting patches for this codebase to bring it up to the level
of functionality you need would be wonderful, can you do that?

thanks,

greg k-h