lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, right, it can just use fi.flags. 0002 dropped.

>>> 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.

Alright.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-13 06:57    [W:0.189 / U:1.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site