From: Tejun H. <tj...@ke...> - 2008-11-13 05:54:51
|
Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Comments about the others: >>> >>> 0002-FUSE-pass-nonblock-flag-to-client.patch >>> >>> this is not needed, f_flags are already passed to userspace for read >>> and write. >> Hmmm... I'll try to find out whether I can use f_flags. There was >> something that prevented it from working properly. I'll dig. > > Support for this was missing from libfuse, but now I fixed that in the > CVS version. Yeah, right, it can just use fi.flags. 0002 dropped. >>> 0004-FUSE-implement-direct-lseek-support.patch >>> >>> this is trickier to get the interface right I think. If we want to >>> allow filesystems to implement a custom lseek, then we also want them >>> to keep track of the file position, which means we must differentiate >>> between a write(2) and a pwrite(2) and similarly for reads. AFAICS >>> this isn't needed for CUSE so we can leave this to later. >> Read/write already passes @offset, so the only thing required is an >> extra flag there. I mainly wanted a way for a CUSE server to veto lseek >> with proper error and still think it's better to have this as we don't >> really know what wacky users are out there. What do you think about an >> extra flag? > > OK, but that's gonna involve a fair bit of API churn, and I'm not sure > it's worth it at this stage. If this is not needed for the OSS > emulation, I think we should postpone it. Alright. Thanks. -- tejun |