Re: Addressing architectural differences between FUSE driver and fs - Re: virtio-fs tests between host(x86) and dpu(arm64)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 11:18 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 11:08, Peter-Jan Gootzen <pgootzen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > Option 2 is detectable if fuse_init_out.minor < CANON_ARCH_MINOR,
> > not
> > sure yet what we could do with that knowledge (maybe useful in error
> > logging?).
> 
> Using the version for feature detection breaks if a feature is
> backported.  So this method has been deprecated and not used on new
> features.
Oh that is very good to know. So for new features, feature detection is
only done through the flags?

If so, then in this case (and correct me if I'm wrong),
if the client doesn't set the FUSE_CANON_ARCH flag, the server/device
should not read the arch_id.
If the server doesn't set the FUSE_CANON_ARCH flag, then the client
should assume that the server has the same arch. Because it could be
either the same arch, or not support this new feature yet while being a
different arch.

As this is in some sense a bug-fix for certain systems, would this new
feature qualify for backporting?

- Peter-Jan





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux