On 1/16/25 8:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 20:41, Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Miklos, is this patchset acceptable for your tree? > > Looks good generally. > > I wonder why you chose to use a mount option instead of an FUSE_INIT param? IMO this timeout mechanism has no dependence on the implementation on the server side, and it's self-contained by the kernel side. Thus it's adequate to negotiate through the mount option instead of the INIT feature negotiation. Although the FUSE mount instance is generally mounted by the fuse server itself in the libfuse implementation. IOW INIT feature negotiation is required only when the server side shall opt in. -- Thanks, Jingbo
