Hi! On Tue 20-05-25 15:59:39, Ernesto A. Fernández wrote: > 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. Correct, this kind of matches my feelings from this discussion so far. Sure APFS support in the kernel would be more convenient for some users. But so far I didn't hear a reason why FUSE driver wouldn't cover 99% of the usecases (since I know close to nothing about Apple ecosystem, maybe I've missed some so please correct me in that case). Perhaps to explain the reasons of a pushback a bit: Once the filesystem driver is merged, it's very difficult to get rid of it as users may depend on it. Each filesystem driver adds certain maintenance burden - most notably for changes in VFS and other generic infrastructure that need to take into account what each and every filesystem is doing. We already carry quite a few filesystem drivers used by very few people and since few people are interested it them it's difficult to find people to get these drivers converted to new mount API, iomap infrastructure, new page cache APIs etc. which forces us to keep carring the old interfaces. This gets particularly painful for filesystems where we don't have full specification so usually the mkfs and fsck tooling is not as comprehensive which makes testing changes harder. So the bar (in terms of usecases) to get the new filesystem driver merged is relatively high. > > 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. Using FUSE to access the filesystem certainly has it's overhead (although there is work in progress to heavily reduce that for data-intensive operations such as streaming IO). But I doubt your the usecase for APFS is to use it as a backend for a file server or a database. We have other filesystems in Linux for that. All the usecases I've heard are about being able to access you Mac files from Linux. And FUSE driver should have acceptable performance for that from my experience. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
