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 Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 10:02, Peter-Jan Gootzen <pgootzen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We would like to make a proposal regarding our idea for solving this
> issue before sending in a patch:
> Use a uint32_t from the unused array in FUSE_INIT to encode an `uint32_t
> arch_indicator` that contains one of the architecture IDs specified in a
> new enum (is there an existing enum like such?):
> enum fuse_arch_indicator {
>     FUSE_ARCH_NONE = 0,
>     FUSE_ARCH_X86 = 1,
>     FUSE_ARCH_ARM64 = 2,
>     ...
> }
> Through this the host tells the FUSE file system which version of
> fcntl.h it will use.
> The FUSE file system should keep a copy of all the possible fcntl
> headers and use the one indicated by the `fuse_init_in.arch_indicator`.

To be clear: you propose that the fuse client (in the VM kernel) sets
the arch indicator and the server (on the host) translates constants?

That sounds like a good plan.

Alternatively the client would optionally translate to a common set of
constants (x86 would be a good choice) and then the server would only
need to know the translation between x86 and native.

What about errno?  Any other arch specific constants?

Thanks,
Miklos




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux