Re: More compatibility for refuse

[Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-userlevel%mumble.net@localhost>]

> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:02 +0000
> From: coypu%sdf.org@localhost
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:55:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > <coypu%sdf.org@localhost> wrote:
> > 
> > > If anything we should get rid of perfuse.
> > 
> > FUSE has thee API: kernel level, low level and high level.
> > 
> > refuse only implements the high level API
> > 
> > perfuse implements the kernel API, libfuse runs on top of it and
> > provides low level API and high level API. `
> > 
> > Hence, perfuse supports all FUSE filesystems, while refuse can only
> > supports the one that use the high level API.
> > 
> > If you want to dive into more details, here is my EuroBSDcon 2014 paper
> > on that stuff: http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz/fuse.pdf
> 
> I'm just going to commit code without code review if all the responses
> are going to be "please don't work on X, work on Y instead".
> I am interested in librefuse because that's what gets used.

May I suggest the following rephrasing?

`Cool, thanks, how do I make fuse-ntfs-3g and fuse-ext2 use it?
What's the costs/benefits to using libfuse via perfused, versus
librefuse?  Is there a reason to prefer one over the other going
forward?'