On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes > > so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch > > tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder! > > FWIW, my reasoning here is > * erofs tree exists and > * the patch is erofs-specific, affects nothing outside and > has no dependencies with anything currently done in VFS or in other > filesystems and > * it does have (trivial) conflicts with the stuff in > erofs tree > > So putting it into erofs tree would seem to be an obvious approach - > minimizes the amount of cross-tree dependencies and headache for > everyone involved...
That is reasonable. btw, our initial thought was that relates to new mount apis and we weren't very confident if it really went the filesystem itself... > > I'm dropping it from #work.misc and #for-next now. I will push out for next cycle. Thanks for detailed explanation. Thanks, Gao Xiang >
