From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1523BB48 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2026 22:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776550739; cv=none; b=N2uE0atb53lXsqbqDWnRbwcauL1bWcKsvhw+SvmPdNbbWOI5lx4zHRk42+3VzJMH7vWUOXq0m+qrlXIsMIsihkrF19E43VOG/PJtPKAX78wIKEm8XQirOTztSEhT+Q3HDAssud4fgRWLaA0bQ3CuQsnjeMaAKNqhAjyfeLRikcM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776550739; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GY9s5G+l2f1sZVgIL40eKhrxCPHTgtR02kS600LK4f8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bf48nAAW4/bHtp1+NoLrFsIIp8Ext8LmO0jyN+Ci/gj8aHAAHx7rgxmKgYbGXKs5b2mz0JH0RK9o8tuRicbBl/kwhjhQ7Jr2/F/g4QMclsL0Msb6PkjmMHqIXcAoJKXuC8CPTn7MhsjzOFRTiXFtrTKa77UmAQ0wNKPzs0dk1QA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=A0tl8o43; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="A0tl8o43" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D923C2BCB7; Sat, 18 Apr 2026 22:18:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1776550738; bh=GY9s5G+l2f1sZVgIL40eKhrxCPHTgtR02kS600LK4f8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=A0tl8o43MDiC1s6ySDM43KN7Z6NR9+dSzPwAXEBN60XK8D350YPKotHln+Y35t7Nv LXj7mqn9eB9aSrwKYPltnwiDocN93kJJ1OYidpRrnlxvr55GdASVdJE8ootxNPUb7A yGKiuxsaCLIZvmnrwyzJSnswpzZeVlRrbqDUSFmiJt/qBqsLLZ/En2Rfg8wHU2GlVC WFxPVRUrBn2HCGtJynQRs6Hk2crQ74hRFc4UF33KFIl8jMBRugm8jShpOuZNKCa9X8 OaK+sXHQL8fddGLHKkLd7EupGD5ZA5+jkN/W8ECFsjQZYkhqZYyJ7wxoz4282PauwG NNu7Anzjv2iaw== Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 22:18:56 +0000 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Christian Brauner , Jan Kara , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Tso , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: add guidelines for submitting new filesystems Message-ID: References: <20260417142503.1436446-1-amir73il@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On 04/18, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 7:20 PM Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > On 04/17, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > ... > > > I kind of want a section on "no weird ioctls". Anything you want to > > > implement beyond ioctls already implemented by other filesystems, > > > you need to bring to linux-fsdevel as a separate proposal from "please > > > merge my filesystem". Almost anything implemented by f2fs is a good > > > example here. > > > > I disagree to this. As a filesystem developer, I belive ioctl provides a way > > to tune the filesystem-specific features which are not supported by all the > > other filesystems. > > > > Jaegeuk, > > Note that, despite Matthew's unhidden opinion about "weird ioctls", > the proposed clause does not say that they are not allowed. > > The section refers to the way to submit a new filesystem for review > and requests that special ioctls will be clearly submitted separately. > Here is how I have added it in my work branch: > > - Structure the submission logically. It is neither acceptable to send one > large patch containing the entire filesystem, nor is a replay of the full > development history helpful to reviewers. Instead, split the series by > topic -- for example: superblock and mount handling, inode operations, > directory operations, address space operations, and so on -- so that each > patch is reviewable in isolation. > > - Separate any filesystem-specific ioctls into their own patches with > dedicated justification. Interfaces beyond those already common across > other filesystems will receive additional scrutiny because they are hard > to maintain and may conflict with future generic interfaces. > > - Expect thorough review. Filesystem code interacts deeply with the VFS, > memory management, and block layers, so reviewers will examine the code > carefully. Address all review feedback and be prepared for multiple > revision cycles. Thanks, those are all reasonable to me, as I did quite similarly in 2012, https://lwn.net/Articles/518718/. Some useful tips before submission might be helpful: 1) find a company sponsorship for long-term maintenance support 2) present key differentiating features to filesystem/kernel leads (e.g., Ted) 3) check any patent/copyright violation 4) share the results of xfstests/fsstress/power-off recovery test/code coverage Thanks, > > Thanks, > Amir.