Hi again, On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:08:54PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote: > Now that some current use cases have already been provided Some interesting use cases have been mentioned, yes, but I doubt they are common enough to convince upstream to pick up a whole new filesystem. I was also more curious about your own personal interest in the driver, because you are going to get some very hostile feedback if you try to get it merged. You won't get anywhere without strong conviction in the matter. > I'm curious about what the biggest obstacles are at present. I don't think there are any big technical problems, the driver is fairly usable at this point and it's been a while since xfstests found any corruption bugs. But it's still a reverse engineered filesystem, and there will always be risks. There's also the issue of the buffer heads, but Ted Ts'o has said before that it doesn't matter much. The real obstacle is that I have no idea how to convince people that this is a good idea, and nobody else is going to do it for me. There were no replies to Jan Kara's obvious and fairly friendly objection; it's going to get much worse than that if you try to push this through. Personally, I just don't mind maintaining the driver out of tree. > APFS in the kernel should have better performance than a FUSE > implementation. Sure, but how much better? You could try running benchmarks against the two existing (read-only) fuse implementations. And if the driver is indeed much faster, does that matter to you for any particular reason? Keep in mind that you need to convince Jan Kara, not me. Anyway, it's nice when people get interested in your projects and I do appreciate that. But I just don't see it happening. Ernesto
