On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:08 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 04:25, Hao Peng <flyingpenghao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 5:34 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 14:36, Hao Peng <flyingpenghao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > For a simple read-only file system, as long as the connection > > > > is not broken, the recovery of the user-mode read-only file > > > > system can be realized by putting the request of the processing > > > > list back into the pending list. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > > > Do you have example userspace code for this? > > > > > Under development. When the fuse user-mode file system process is abnormal, > > the process does not terminate (/dev/fuse will not be closed), enter > > the reset procedure, > > and will not open /dev/fuse again during the reinitialization. > > Of course, this can only solve part of the abnormal problem. > > Yes, that's what I'm mainly worried about. Replaying the few > currently pending requests is easy, but does that really help in real > situations? > > Much more information is needed about what you are trying to achieve > and how, as well as a working userspace implementation to be able to > judge this patch. > I will provide a simple example in a few days. The effect achieved is that the user process will not perceive the abnormal restart of the read-only file system process based on fuse. > Thanks, > Miklos
