Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

[Rafał Miłecki]

Hi Alexander,

On 13.07.2021 22:14, Al Viro wrote:
> To elaborate a bit - there's one case when I want it to go through
> vfs.git, and that's when there's an interference between something
> going on in vfs.git and the work done in filesystem.  Other than
> that, I'm perfectly fine with maintainer sending pull request directly
> to Linus (provided that I hadn't spotted something obviously wrong
> in the series, of course, but that's not "I want it to go through
> vfs.git" - that's "I don't want it in mainline until such and such
> bug is resolved").

let me take this opportunity to ask about another filesystem.

Would you advise to send pull req for the fs/ntfs3 directly to Linus?

That is a pending filesystem that happens to be highly expected by many
Linux focused communities.


Paragon Software GmbH proved it's commitment by sending as many as 26
versions on it's patchset. The last set was send early April:

[PATCH v26 00/10] NTFS read-write driver GPL implementation by Paragon Software
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=161738417018673&q=mbox
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/list/?series=460291


I'd say there weren't any serious issues raised since then.

One Tested-by, one maintenance question, one remainder, one clang-12
issue [0] [1].

It seems this filesystem only needs:
1. [Requirement] Adjusting to the meanwhile changed iov API [2]
2. [Clean up] Using fs/iomap/ helpers [3]


[0] https://marc.info/?t=161738428400012&r=1&w=2
[1] https://marc.info/?t=162143182800001&r=1&w=2
[2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=162607857810008&w=2
[3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=162152950315047&w=2