Re: [RFC] MXFS: a shared-disk clustered filesystem derived from XFS

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 09:19:39AM -0400, Steve Shoecraft wrote:
> I’m disappointed in your responses. I would have thought that you’d at
> least be interested in how well the AI did.

And I'm disappointed every time someone unfamiliar to the (xfs)
community appears out of nowhere with a giant pile of code (LLM
generated or otherwise) and a request that we read it.

If you want people to review your code, start by watching the mailing
list for a month or two to familiarize yourself with community norms,
and to ask questions when others post patches.

> It’s going to get better — not worse.
> 
> Since the initial 2-node TCP/DLM release (0.89.77 on September 23), Fable and Astra have completed 2-node CAW (0.90.7 on September 26), and 4-node TCP and CAW (0.90.24) have now been released on:
> • Proxmox VE 9 (kernels 6.17 and 7.0)
> • RHEL / AlmaLinux / Rocky 9.8
> • Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (GA kernel 6.8)
> • Debian 13 (kernel 6.12)
> 
> All are distributed as native DEB/RPM packages, with the kernel module built against the target kernel via DKMS.
> 
> The 0.90.24 release passed the complete release criteria: 4-node TCP 31/31, 4-node CAW 30/30, 2-node TCP 31/31, and 2-node CAW 30/30. All four platforms passed their packaged installation and validation runs.
> 
> The goal is full 32-node support for both TCP and CAW DLM.
> 
> 
> 
> The next project is OSN — a fully AI-written OS from scratch.

Good luck with that when you can't even be bothered to llmcode a test
to make sure the magic numbers do not match standard xfs.

--D

> > On Sep 27, 2026, at 7:03 AM, Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 07:32:27AM -0500, Steve Shoecraft wrote:
> >> 
> >> Good catch on the magic - I had it changed in previous attempts and forgot on this one - release 0.90.0 has MXFS unique magic.
> >> 
> >> I’ve been writing device drivers since the 90s on FreeBSD.  This was a research project to see if an LLM could do it with the right harness.
> >> 
> >> Release conditions of course included 100% data integrity and 100% stability.   XFS was the right choice for the base.
> >> 
> >> Intent is a good clustered FS for Proxmox to compete with vSphere and VMFS.  Yes, I’m aware of the differences in implementations.
> > 
> > If you are not even bothering reviewing your own project source code as
> > you stated, don't expect anybody else to spend their time or have
> > interest on it.
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Sep 26, 2026, at 1:07 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think too many people are going to care about your LLM dump,
> >>> or even review it.  But please make sure you use different magic numbers
> >>> so that a mxfs image left in the wild is not mistaken for an xfs one.
> 
>