Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ntfs filesystem remake

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 11:03:30PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>    a. Pass more xfstests tests:
>       ntfs passed 308 tests, significantly higher than ntfs3's 235.
>       ntfs passed tests are a complete superset of the tests passed
>       by ntfs3. ntfs implement fallocate, idmapped mount and permission,
>       etc, resulting in a significantly high number of xfstests passing
>       compared to ntfs3.

I'm not sure how many tests are actually run for the ntfs variants
because they lack features needed for many tests, but how many still
fail with this, because with these numbers I suspect there's quite
a few left. Do you have any good grasp why they are failing, i.e.
assumptions in xfsteasts, or missing feature checks?

Also adding this here instead of for the various patches adding the code:
there's a lot of problems with kerneldoc comments that make W=1 warns
about.  I think a lot of those are because comments are formatted as
kerneldoc when they should not.

Sparse also reports quite a lot of endianes/bitwise errors which need to
be addressed.