lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/7] FUSE: implement ioctl support
From
Date
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I first used 'server' for userland [FC]USE server but then I noticed
> there were places in FUSE they were referred as clients so now I use
> 'client' for those and call the app using the FUSE fs the 'caller'.
> What are the established terms?

Umm

- userspace filesystem
- filesystem daemon
- filesystem process
- server

Yes it's also a client of the fuse device, but that term is confusing.

> Anyways, doing it directly from the server (or is it client) opens up a
> lot of new possibilities to screw up and I'd really much prefer staying
> in similar ballpark with other operations. Maybe we can restrict it to
> two stages (query size & transfer) and linear consecutive ranges but
> then again adding retry doesn't contribute too much to the complexity.
> Oh.. and BTW, the in-ioctl length coding is not used universally, so it
> can't be depended upon.

I know it's not universal, some horrors I've seen in the old wireless
interfaces. The question is: do we want to support such "extended"
ioctls? For exmaple, does OSS have non-conformant ioctls?

> >> Also, what about containers? How would it work then?
> >
> > Dunno. Isn't there some transformation of pids going on, so that the
> > global namespace can access pids in all containers but under a
> > different alias? I do hope somethinig like this works, otherwise it's
> > not only fuse that will break.
>
> I'm not sure either. Any idea who we should be asking about it?

Serge Hallyn and Eric Biederman.

Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-29 10:33    [W:0.102 / U:1.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site