On 2024/5/28 11:08, Jingbo Xu wrote:
On 5/28/24 10:45 AM, Jingbo Xu wrote:
On 5/27/24 11:16 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 08:40, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
3. I don't know if a kernel based recovery mechanism is welcome on the
community side. Any comment is welcome. Thanks!
I'd prefer something external to fuse.
Okay, understood.
Maybe a kernel based fdstore (lifetime connected to that of the
container) would a useful service more generally?
Yeah I indeed had considered this, but I'm afraid VFS guys would be
concerned about why we do this on kernel side rather than in user space.
Just from my own perspective, even if it's in FUSE, the concern is
almost the same.
I wonder if on-demand cachefiles can keep fds too in the future
(thus e.g. daemonless feature could even be implemented entirely
with kernel fdstore) but it still has the same concern or it's
a source of duplication.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
I'm not sure what the VFS guys think about this and if the kernel side
shall care about this.
There was an RFC for kernel-side fdstore [1], though it's also
implemented upon FUSE.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+a=Yy5rnqLqH2iR-ZY6AUkNJy48mroVV3Exmhmt-pfTi82kXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
