Re: [PATCH 00/11] ntfsplus: ntfs filesystem remake

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1750 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:55:15AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:17 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:07:38AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > > Introduction
> > > ============
> >
> > Can you write the documentation at least in
> > Documentation/filesystems/ntfsplus.rst?
> Okay, I will add it on the next version.
> >
> >
> > > - Journaling support:
> > >    ntfs3 does not provide full journaling support. It only implement journal
> > >    replay[4], which in our testing did not function correctly. My next task
> > >    after upstreaming will be to add full journal support to ntfsplus.
> >
> > What's the plan for journaling? Mirroring the Windows implementation AFAIK?
> Yes. It would be best to first obtain the NTFS journal specification,
> and I'll try that.
> >
> > For the timeline: I guess you plan to submit journaling patches right after
> > ntfsplus is merged (at least applied to the filesystem tree or direct PR to
> > Linus), or would it be done for the subsequent release cycle (6.n+1)?
> It will probably take about a year to implement and stabilize it.

I didn't understand. You mean ntfsplus will be non-journaling fs for a while
after upstreaming, right?

> 
> >
> > Regarding stability: As it is a new filesystem, shouldn't it be marked
> > experimental (and be stabilized for a few cycles) first?
> I heard from Chrisitan's email that he was considering adding fs/staging trees.
> In my opinion, it would be a good idea to promote ntfsplus after it's
> been tested
> there for a few cycles. And an experimental mark is also possible.

Ack.

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]