Re: More compatibility for refuse

[coypu%sdf.org@localhost]

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
> 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.