1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
|
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
.. _adding_new_filesystems:
Adding New Filesystems
======================
This document describes what is involved in adding a new filesystem to the
Linux kernel.
Every filesystem merged into the kernel becomes the collective responsibility
of the VFS maintainers and the wider filesystem development community.
Experience has shown that filesystems which become unmaintained impose a
significant and ongoing burden: they are hard or impossible to test, they
block infrastructure changes because someone must update or preserve old APIs
for code that nobody is actively looking after, and they accumulate unfixed
bugs. The requirements and expectations described here are informed by this
experience and are intended to ensure that new filesystems enter the kernel
on a sustainable footing.
Do You Need a New In-Kernel Filesystem?
---------------------------------------
Before proposing a new in-kernel filesystem, consider whether one of the
alternatives might be more appropriate.
- If an existing in-kernel filesystem covers the same use case, improving it
is generally preferred over adding a new implementation. The kernel
community favors incremental improvement over parallel implementations.
- If the filesystem serves a niche audience or has a small user base, a FUSE
(Filesystem in Userspace) implementation may be a better fit. FUSE
filesystems avoid the long-term kernel maintenance commitment and can be
developed and released on their own schedule.
- If kernel-level performance, reliability, or integration is genuinely
required, make the case explicitly. Explain who the users are, what the
use case is, and why a FUSE implementation would not be sufficient.
Technical Requirements
----------------------
New filesystems must use current kernel interfaces and practices.
Submitting a filesystem built on outdated APIs creates an unacceptable
maintenance debt and is likely to face pushback during review.
Use modern VFS interfaces
Do not use interfaces listed in
:ref:`Documentation/process/deprecated.rst <deprecated>`.
Use folios rather than raw page operations for page cache management and
iomap rather than buffer heads for block mapping and I/O. See
``Documentation/filesystems/iomap/index.rst`` for iomap documentation.
Block-based filesystems that need functionality not currently provided by
iomap should be prepared to explain why adding that functionality to iomap
is infeasible, rather than reimplementing their own block mapping layer.
Network filesystems should consider using the netfs library
(``Documentation/filesystems/netfs_library.rst``), or be prepared to explain
why it is not a good fit.
Provide userspace utilities
A ``mkfs`` tool is expected so that the filesystem can be created and used
by testers and users. A ``fsck`` tool is strongly recommended; while not
strictly required for every filesystem type, the ability to verify
consistency and repair corruption is an important part of a mature
filesystem.
Be testable
The filesystem must be testable in a meaningful way. The
`fstests <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git>`_
framework (also known as xfstests) is the standard testing infrastructure
for Linux filesystems and its use is highly recommended. At a minimum,
there must be a credible and documented way to test the filesystem and
detect regressions. When submitting, include a summary of test results
indicating which tests pass, fail, or are not applicable.
Provide documentation
A documentation file under ``Documentation/filesystems/`` describing the
filesystem, its on-disk format, mount options, and any notable design
decisions is recommended.
Community and Maintainership Expectations
-----------------------------------------
Merging a filesystem is a long-term commitment. The kernel community
needs confidence that the filesystem will be actively maintained after it
is merged.
Identified maintainers
The submission must include a ``MAINTAINERS`` entry with at least one
maintainer (``M:``), a mailing list (``L:``), and a git tree (``T:``).
Having two or more maintainers is strongly preferred so that coverage
does not depend on a single person. The maintainers are expected to be
the primary points of contact for the filesystem going forward.
Demonstrated commitment
A track record of maintaining kernel code -- for example, in other
subsystems -- significantly strengthens the case for a new filesystem.
Maintainers who are already known and trusted within the community face
less friction during review.
Sustained backing
Major filesystems in Linux have organizational or corporate support behind
their development. Filesystems that depend entirely on volunteer effort
face higher scrutiny about their long-term viability.
Responsiveness
The maintainer is expected to respond to bug reports, address review
feedback, and adapt the filesystem to VFS infrastructure changes such as
folio conversions, iomap migration, and mount API updates. Unresponsive
maintainership is one of the primary reasons filesystems end up on the
path to deprecation.
User base
Clearly describe who the users of this filesystem are and the scale of the
user base. Filesystems with a very small or unclear user base face a
harder path to acceptance and a higher risk of future deprecation.
Building your track record
A practical way to demonstrate many of the qualities above is to maintain
the filesystem out-of-tree for a period before requesting a merge. This
shows sustained commitment, builds a visible user base, and gives reviewers
confidence that the code and its maintainer will persist after merging.
That said, it is recognized that for some filesystems the user base grows
significantly only after upstreaming, so a compelling case for expected
adoption can substitute for a large existing user base.
Submission Process
------------------
This section covers what is specific to filesystem submissions, over and
above the normal submission advice in
:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` and
:ref:`Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst <submitchecklist>`.
- Send patches to the linux-fsdevel mailing list
(``linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org``). CC the relevant VFS maintainers as
listed in the ``MAINTAINERS`` file under
``FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)``.
- Structure the submission logically. It is neither acceptable to send one
large patch containing the entire filesystem, nor is a replay of the full
development history helpful to reviewers. Instead, split the series by
topic -- for example: superblock and mount handling, inode operations,
directory operations, address space operations, and so on -- so that each
patch is reviewable in isolation.
- Separate any filesystem-specific ioctls into their own patches with
dedicated justification. Interfaces beyond those already common across
other filesystems will receive additional scrutiny because they are hard
to maintain and may conflict with future generic interfaces.
- Expect thorough review. Filesystem code interacts deeply with the VFS,
memory management, and block layers, so reviewers will examine the code
carefully. Address all review feedback and be prepared for multiple
revision cycles.
- It may be appropriate to mark the filesystem as experimental in its Kconfig
help text for the first few releases to set expectations while the code
stabilizes in-tree.
Ongoing Obligations
-------------------
Merging is not the finish line. Maintaining a filesystem in the kernel is an
ongoing commitment.
- Adapt to VFS infrastructure changes. The VFS layer evolves continuously;
maintainers are expected to keep up with conversions such as folio
migration, iomap adoption, and mount API updates.
- Maintain test coverage. As test suites evolve, the filesystem's test
results should be kept current.
- Handle security issues and regression promptly. Both those reported
by ordinary users and those reported by test bots and fuzzing tools.
The filesystem must handle corrupted input gracefully without corrupting
memory, hanging, or crashing the kernel.
- Engage with the wider filesystem community. Participate on linux-fsdevel,
share approaches to common problems, and look for opportunities to reuse
shared infrastructure. It is inappropriate to develop in isolation on a
private list and surface patches only at merge time.
- Filesystems that become unmaintained -- where the maintainer stops
responding, infrastructure changes go unadapted, and testing becomes
impossible -- are candidates for deprecation and eventual removal from
the kernel.
|
