linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>
To: "glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de" <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
	"frank.li@vivo.com" <frank.li@vivo.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"slava@dubeyko.com" <slava@dubeyko.com>
Subject: [RFC] Should we consider to re-write HFS/HFS+ in Rust?
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 23:39:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d5ea8adb198eb6b6d2f6accaf044b543631f7a72.camel@ibm.com> (raw)

Hi Adrian, Yangtao,

One idea crossed my mind recently. And this is about re-writing HFS/HFS+ in
Rust. It could be interesting direction but I am not sure how reasonable it
could be. From one point of view, HFS/HFS+ are not critical subsystems and we
can afford some experiments. From another point of view, we have enough issues
in the HFS/HFS+ code and, maybe, re-working HFS/HFS+ can make the code more
stable.

I don't think that it's a good idea to implement the complete re-writing of the
whole driver at once. However, we need a some unification and generalization of
HFS/HFS+ code patterns in the form of re-usable code by both drivers. This re-
usable code can be represented as by C code as by Rust code. And we can
introduce this generalized code in the form of C and Rust at the same time. So,
we can re-write HFS/HFS+ code gradually step by step. My point here that we
could have C code and Rust code for generalized functionality of HFS/HFS+ and
Kconfig would define which code will be compiled and used, finally.

How do you feel about this? And can we afford such implementation efforts?

Thanks,
Slava.

             reply	other threads:[~2025-05-27 23:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-27 23:39 Viacheslav Dubeyko [this message]
2025-05-28  7:11 ` [RFC] Should we consider to re-write HFS/HFS+ in Rust? John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2025-05-28 16:10   ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-05-28 12:40 ` Yangtao Li
2025-05-28 16:16   ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-19 19:33     ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-19 20:22       ` Miguel Ojeda
2025-06-19 21:48         ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-19 22:00           ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-20  8:17           ` Miguel Ojeda
2025-06-20 18:10             ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-20 19:27               ` Miguel Ojeda
2025-06-19 21:39       ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-19 22:24         ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-20 17:46           ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-20 18:11             ` Miguel Ojeda
2025-06-21 22:38               ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2025-06-22  7:48                 ` Benno Lossin
2025-06-23 10:25                 ` Miguel Ojeda

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d5ea8adb198eb6b6d2f6accaf044b543631f7a72.camel@ibm.com \
    --to=slava.dubeyko@ibm.com \
    --cc=frank.li@vivo.com \
    --cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=slava@dubeyko.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).