tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: More compatibility for refuse

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:44:44PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> writes:
> > If anything we should get rid of perfuse.
> Certainly not.  It is there because gluster uses /dev/fuse directly, or
> via some "low level" API, rather than using the standard FUSE API (the
> "high level" API).  I am unclear on why, but my impression is that there
> are good reasons vs it being gratuitous.  So perfuse - which is only in
> pkgsrc - has to stay.
> But, that's not really related to the best way forward here.
> Is it a fair characterization that what you are proposing is about
> adding support for older versions of the API, to accomodate programs
> that are not written to the current FUSE API version?
> Other than a bit more header defs, and a few compat functions, are there
> downsides?
> Is this notion of compat APIs normal in FUSE?  With real modern fuse,
> are the old API functions available always, or does one have to define
> something?

No, upstream FUSE loves having every downstream filesystem get adjusted
whenever it decides an argument isn't useful any more.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index