On Nov 11 2016, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Nov 11 2016, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> In commit d7afaec0b564f0609e116f5 you added a new FUSE_NO_OPEN_SUPPORT
>>>> flag. But as far as I can tell, the flag is simply accepted without
>>>> having any effect (including in libfuse).
>>>>
>>>> I tried to find related later commits, but did not find anything either.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Hmm, if fuse fs detects this flag, then it can return ENOSYS from open
>>> resulting in this and subsequent opens succeeding without further
>>> calls to userspace. If fuse fs doesn't detect this flag, it should
>>> not return -ENOSYS, as that will result in the open failing, it should
>>> instead implement a no-op open method.
>>
>> That doesn't sound like a good approach to me. That way, the file system
>> has to *know* that this flag has been introduced in order to behave
>> correctly, i.e. filesystems that predate the introduction of the flag
>> will suddenly behave differently.
>>
>> I think the correct behavior would be to for the kernel to check if
>> userspace passed the flag, and treat ENOSYS specially if and only if the
>> flag was passed.
>
> ENOSYS is not a valid return value for any existing syscall. Fuse
> uses that fact to attach this special meaning to ENOSYS. So
> compatibility is not an issue here, old filesystems should never
> return ENOSYS from open.
Oh, I was under the impression that any FUSE handler is free to return
any error it wants. Where does one have to look to determine which
return values are valid?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
