[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguMs60OCWvKRpnSizCLHKxYp+DFX9uWgqpWBL++0iwSqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:20:21 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>, Kevin Chen <kchen@....com>,
Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Harvey <mharvey@...ptrading.com>,
kernel-dev@...lia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] fuse: implementation of the FUSE_LOOKUP_HANDLE operation
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 at 15:45, Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com> wrote:
> struct fuse_entry_handle_out {
> uint64_t nodeid;
> uint64_t generation;
> uint64_t entry_valid;
> struct fuse_file_handle fh;
> }
I'd do it this way:
struct fuse_entry2_out {
uint64_t nodeid;
uint64_t generation;
uint64_t entry_valid;
uint32_t entry_valid_nsec;
uint32_t flags;
uint64_t spare;
};
and the file handle would be placed in out_args[1].
> I'll then need to have a look at the compound requests closely. (I had
> previously skimmed through the patches that add open+getattr but didn't
> gone too deep into it.)
It should work as two separate requests, just not as optimal.
> And then the extension header would be created similarly to what's being
> done for FUSE_EXT_GROUPS, using the same helper extend_arg(). That way, I
> think we would have: headers - payload - extensions.
Right.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists