From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Antonov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6 to 4.0] hfsplus: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 03:06:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1426786824.70252.YahooMailBasic@web172303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , stable@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , Vyacheslav Dubeyko , Anton Altaparmakov , Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig To: Hin-Tak Leung Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com ([209.85.218.50]:35344 "EHLO mail-oi0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764AbbCZCG1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:06:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1426786824.70252.YahooMailBasic@web172303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19 March 2015 at 18:40, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: >>> Also, the logic of hfs_brec_insert() in the plain hfs (without +) driver in >>> fs/hfs/brec.c is essentially the same, so I believe there is the need of another >>> similiar patch for that also. Can you provide that also? >> >>No. The original HFS is very old. The only reasonable purpose of its >>implementation in Linux IMO is to read data from old disks. Read-only >>mode that is. > > I don't think it is right to dictate how users should use their linux box. > On the whole we should only stop fixing bugs if we are going > to deprecate hfs (and subsequently remove it). Also, there is some value > in keeping two file systems which are code-wise very similar in sync. > > If you cannot find the time, but otherwise have no objection, I'd be happy to > spend the time to prepare the patch, and add your signed-off on it? Of course, I have no objections. But, please, do not add me in signed-off-by. Because signed-off-by implies some responsibility, and I do not want to have one for hfs.