Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752095AbYKLKBU (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:01:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751679AbYKLKBM (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:01:12 -0500 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:53327 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751626AbYKLKBL (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:01:11 -0500 To: tj@kernel.org CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: <491A96AE.3080600@kernel.org> (message from Tejun Heo on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:41:18 +0900) Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations References: <1219945263-21074-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <48F4568B.7000609@kernel.org> <491A96AE.3080600@kernel.org> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:00:56 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1600 Lines: 39 On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Comments about the others: > > > > 0002-FUSE-pass-nonblock-flag-to-client.patch > > > > this is not needed, f_flags are already passed to userspace for read > > and write. > > Hmmm... I'll try to find out whether I can use f_flags. There was > something that prevented it from working properly. I'll dig. Support for this was missing from libfuse, but now I fixed that in the CVS version. > > 0004-FUSE-implement-direct-lseek-support.patch > > > > this is trickier to get the interface right I think. If we want to > > allow filesystems to implement a custom lseek, then we also want them > > to keep track of the file position, which means we must differentiate > > between a write(2) and a pwrite(2) and similarly for reads. AFAICS > > this isn't needed for CUSE so we can leave this to later. > > Read/write already passes @offset, so the only thing required is an > extra flag there. I mainly wanted a way for a CUSE server to veto lseek > with proper error and still think it's better to have this as we don't > really know what wacky users are out there. What do you think about an > extra flag? OK, but that's gonna involve a fair bit of API churn, and I'm not sure it's worth it at this stage. If this is not needed for the OSS emulation, I think we should postpone it. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/