From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 07:00:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9F116A468 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FFE313C47E for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:00:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 5473 invoked by uid 399); 7 Feb 2008 06:33:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 7 Feb 2008 06:33:35 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47AAA63C.4040504@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:33:32 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson , Scot Hetzel , Yar Tikhiy , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:00:16 -0000 Attilio Rao wrote: > As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken even before first > VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those commits exposed > some problems about NTFS which are currently under investigation. > Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the moment. > > Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible compromise: > remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care of the FUSE > implementation. > What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a light on us > about what do you think about this idea and its implications: > - Do you use NTFS? When it works, yes, I use it often. > - Are you interested in maintaining it? EOVERMYHEAD > - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs implementation? What > the kernel counter part adds? Two, first I prefer to eat our own dog food, and I rarely need to write to the NTFS partition (although it does sometimes come in handy). And second the last time I tried to use it in -current it panicked too, but that was some time ago. > - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea? I think we should do it right, or not do it in the base. We should have _one_ working implementation, if that is FUSE then that's fine with me. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection