Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191657-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <858d23ec-ea81-45cb-9629-ace5d6c2f6d9@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:45:25 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] fuse: introduce fuse server recovery mechanism
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 winters.zc@antgroup.com
References: <20240524064030.4944-1-jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAJfpeguS3PBi-rNtnR2KH1ZS1t4s2HnB_pt4UvnN1orvkhpMew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguS3PBi-rNtnR2KH1ZS1t4s2HnB_pt4UvnN1orvkhpMew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 5/27/24 11:16 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 08:40, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> 3. I don't know if a kernel based recovery mechanism is welcome on the
>> community side.  Any comment is welcome.  Thanks!
> 
> I'd prefer something external to fuse.

Okay, understood.

> 
> Maybe a kernel based fdstore (lifetime connected to that of the
> container) would a useful service more generally?

Yeah I indeed had considered this, but I'm afraid VFS guys would be
concerned about why we do this on kernel side rather than in user space.

I'm not sure what the VFS guys think about this and if the kernel side
shall care about this.

Many thanks!


-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo