Hello, > > 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. Agree, I also think we should use canonical format for cases that client and server have different arches. Regards, Xiaoguang Wang > > 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 > >
