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.nvdimm,dev.linux.lists.fuse-devel,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.