Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:28:29 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <20080207142829.GK7592@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <47AB05A1.7010803@freebsd.org> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <47AAFDED.9030301@freebsd.org> <47AB05A1.7010803@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 02:20:33PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: > >I think Alfred's point is really interesting. How many people that > >don't use it that say 'axe it' does it take to override 1 person saying > >'keep it!'? > > The real question is how many people does it take to say 'I'll maintain > it'? Just one. Without it, it will only bitrot as evidenced by Attilios > question. NTFS is currently broken, just not as obvious because WITNESS > didn't track and enforce lockmgr locks. Yeah, uncared-for code dies, rots, and stinks, but I doubt whether the NTFS driver has died, or it is just ill [1]. :-) Being a rather simple, read-only FS driver, it should have fairly good separation between its lower layer, dealing with NTFS internals, and its upper layer, hooking the FS up to our VFS framework. Now the problem seems to be concentrated in the latter, so the layer should just be brought in accord with today's VFS locking semantics. This is a job I hope I can carry out if provided with brief details on what's wrong with NTFS now -- Attilio said he had been investigating the NTFS issues already. [1] I can't help recalling Scene 2, "Bring out your dead," from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" here. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080207142829.GK7592>