On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 16:38 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 16:02, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 4:29 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 15:23 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > > > > > Could you please add something like below? > > > > > > > > FUSE_NO_OUTSIDE_CHANGES: No file changes through other mounts / clients > > > > > > "through other mounts" is confusing, since one instance of the fuse > filesystem can have many mounts, and changes can be done through all > of them. The issue is if changes are spontaneous from the viewpoint > of the fuse client. > I'm fine with whatever verbiage you prefer. Let me know if you need me to resend. > > > > > > Definitely. I've added that in my local branch. I can either resend > > > later, or maybe Miklos can just add that if he's otherwise OK with this > > > patch. > > > > Don't love the name but don't have any suggestions either. > > > > I am wondering out loud, if we have such a mode for the fs, > > if and how should it affect caching configuration? Another thing to consider: what about fsnotify? Should notifications be allowed when this flag isn't set? > > IMO it should enable all caching and override any conflicting options. > That's a separate patch, but should be done within the next cycle. > I'll look into that. > Thanks! -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
