Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Feedback-ID: i31e841b0:Fastmail
Message-ID: <83a889bd-3f9e-edce-78ff-0afa01990197@themaw.net>
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:22:48 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
From:   Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>
References: <20231027-vfs-autofs-018bbf11ed67@brauner>
 <43ea4439-8cb9-8b0d-5e04-3bd5e85530f4@themaw.net>
 <ZT+9kixqhgsRKlav@redhat.com>
 <61f26d16-36e9-9a3c-ad08-9ed2c8baa748@themaw.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL for v6.7] autofs updates
In-Reply-To: <61f26d16-36e9-9a3c-ad08-9ed2c8baa748@themaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31/10/23 10:12, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 30/10/23 22:28, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 03:54:52PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On 27/10/23 22:33, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>> Hey Linus,
>>>>
>>>> /* Summary */
>>>> This ports autofs to the new mount api. The patchset has existed for
>>>> quite a while but never made it upstream. Ian picked it back up.
>>>>
>>>> This also fixes a bug where fs_param_is_fd() was passed a garbage
>>>> param->dirfd but it expected it to be set to the fd that was used 
>>>> to set
>>>> param->file otherwise result->uint_32 contains nonsense. So make sure
>>>> it's set.
>>>>
>>>> One less filesystem using the old mount api. We're getting there, 
>>>> albeit
>>>> rather slow. The last remaining major filesystem that hasn't converted
>>>> is btrfs. Patches exist - I even wrote them - but so far they haven't
>>>> made it upstream.
>>> Yes, looks like about 39 still to be converted.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just for information, excluding btrfs, what would you like to see as 
>>> the
>>>
>>> priority for conversion (in case me or any of my colleagues get a 
>>> chance
>>>
>>> to spend a bit more time on it)?
>> I'm just starting to have a look at zonefs as a candidate.
>> -Bill
>>
> And devpts looks fairly straight forward and is used a lot ... I'll 
> see if
Christian, David's original conversion patch for devpts looks like it's

still relevant, it also looks fairly small to the point that I'm wondering

if it's worth breaking it down into smaller patches.


Would you be ok with me just doing a straight patch apply, detailed review

and some testing before posting it?


David, are you ok with me resurrecting your conversion patch and posting it

on your behalf?


Ian