Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191877-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240524064030.4944-1-jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAJfpeguS3PBi-rNtnR2KH1ZS1t4s2HnB_pt4UvnN1orvkhpMew@mail.gmail.com> <858d23ec-ea81-45cb-9629-ace5d6c2f6d9@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <858d23ec-ea81-45cb-9629-ace5d6c2f6d9@linux.alibaba.com>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 09:45:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsyyFPUDmoi3T8vkS7+jpgfOqeUZBdKW8=Y7R8-b7ch2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] fuse: introduce fuse server recovery mechanism
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	winters.zc@antgroup.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 04:45, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that is indeed something that needs to be discussed.

I often find, that when discussing something like this a lot of good
ideas can come from different directions, so it can help move things
forward.

Try something really simple first, and post a patch.  Don't overthink
the first version.

Thanks,
Miklos