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]

 



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
> >





[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