On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 11:06:19AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 10:53, Peter-Jan Gootzen <pgootzen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We also considered this idea, it would kind of be like locking FUSE into > > being x86. However I think this is not backwards compatible. Currently > > an ARM64 client and ARM64 server work just fine. But making such a > > change would break if the client has the new driver version and the > > server is not updated to know that it should interpret x86 specifically. > > This would need to be negotiated, of course. > > But it's certainly simpler to just indicate the client arch in the > INIT request. Let's go with that for now. In the long term it would be cleanest to choose a single canonical format instead of requiring drivers and devices to implement many arch-specific formats. I liked the single canonical format idea you suggested. My only concern is whether there are more commands/fields in FUSE that operate in an arch-specific way (e.g. ioctl)? If there really are parts that need to be arch-specific, then it might be necessary to negotiate an architecture after all. Stefan > > Thanks, > Miklos >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
