From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org  Thu Dec 20 14:37:42 2018
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2AE1348FBB
 for <freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:37:42 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)
 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256)
 (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org",
 Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10765834D2;
 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:37:42 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org)
Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id CE0BEBA38; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:37:41 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>
To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" <eugene@zhegan.in>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD
Message-ID: <20181220143741.GA40569@FreeBSD.org>
References: <CAPrugNriggEMMnLTZtf6xNQNYajBYNMnGdN96-ejDYQonoOhgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181219163033.jwm7opiwmdhbk6p3@mutt-hbsd>
 <a64a41fd-f287-cf9d-cd4c-9e55c21c2f00@freebsd.org>
 <4481f3cb-4535-bed3-c09f-429553f8f88b@zhegan.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4481f3cb-4535-bed3-c09f-429553f8f88b@zhegan.in>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 10765834D2
X-Spamd-Bar: --
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.86 / 15.00];
 local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.996,0];
 NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.87)[-0.869,0];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:96.47.64.0/20, country:US];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.993,0]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:37:42 -0000

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 03:49:38PM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
> On 19.12.2018 23:32, Allan Jude wrote:
> > The biggest thing to remember is that this is still OpenZFS, and still
> > run by the same developers as it has been. We are just commonizing on
> > the repo that has the most features integrated into it.
> 
> Does it mean that ZoF and thus FreeBSD will lose NFSv4 ACLs because
> there is no such thing in ZoL?

+1.  I'm also worried if this would bring more Linuxish bits into our
kernel (cf. LinuxKPI).  Also, I thought that ZFS was never really native
to Linux but implemented through SPL (Solaris Porting Layer), and Linux'
VFS is not ARC-aware unlike Solaris and FreeBSD.

It would be quite upsetting to see ZFS as we know it in FreeBSD become
pessimized because of those things. :-(

./danfe