[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsmvhsSGVGih=44tE6Ro7x3RzvOHuaREu+Abd2eZMR6Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:57:35 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] fs: fuse: add backing_files control file
On Tue, 13 May 2025 at 09:39, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> No, the xattr interface is ugly as hell and I don't want it used as a
> generic information transportation information interface. And I don't
> want a single thing that sets a precedent in that direction.
You are getting emotional and the last messages from you contain zero
technical details.
I know about the buffer sizing one, can you describe your other gripes?
> > But if the data is inherently variable sized, adding specialized
> > interface is not going to magically solve that.
> >
> > Instead we can concentrate on solving the buffer sizing problem
> > generally, so that all may benefit.
>
> The xattr system call as far as I'm concerned is not going to be pimped
> to support stuff like that.
Heh? IIRC there were positive reactions to e.g. "O_XATTR", it just
didn't get implemented. Can try to dig this up from the archives.
> Then by all means we can come up with a scheme in procfs that displays
> this hierarchically if we have to.
Yeah, perhaps it's doable.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists