Re: [PATCH V11 0/9] famfs: port into fuse
Amir Goldstein <[email protected]> Sat, 1 Aug 2026 21:02:06 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.fuse-devel,dev.linux.lists.nvdimm,org.kernel.vger.linux-cxl,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOQ4uxhop5bzpDxiqSdfHS8JyUASfAmpsmuhrpq7Ey28jATVsw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 10:59=E2=80=AFPM Joanne Koong <[email protected]= om> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 1:23=E2=80=AFPM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.= com> wrote: > > > > As I understand it, the merge window for 7.3 closes at the end of > > August. Just to summarize, the only things needed to get this into 7.3 > > (besides addressing the Sashiko comments) are: > > a) replace FUSE_GET_FMAP with FUSE_NOTIFY_EXTENT_MAP (will also be > > good for famfs in general, saves an extra context switch) > > b) remove FUSE_DEV_IOC_DAXDEV_OPEN and reuse existing > > FUSE_DEV_IOC_BACKING_OPEN (logic for this already supplied in Miklos's > > patch in [1]) > > c) remove "config FUSE_FAMFS_DAX" > > d) remove FUSE_DAX_FMAP capability (not 100% sure about this, but > > since the only thing added to the uapi is a new notif type, seems fine > > to exclude this cap flag) > > FWIW I'd rather keep the explicit negotiation flag and make it mutually exclusive with FUSE_PASSTHROUGH (anything else)? This will allow us reuse of fuse_passthrough infrastructure with less concern about mixing the two use cases, which at this point seem like two different use cases. Thanks, Amir.