[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:
> coypu%sdf.org@localhost 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
> 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
No, upstream FUSE loves having every downstream filesystem get adjusted
whenever it decides an argument isn't useful any more.
Main Index |
Thread Index |