On 25/08/14 04:36PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 15:36, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> wrote: > > > I'm still hoping some common ground would benefit both interfaces. > > Just not sure what it should be. > > Something very high level: > > - allow several map formats: say a plain one with a list of extents > and a famfs one > - allow several types of backing files: say regular and dax dev > - querying maps has a common protocol, format of maps is opaque to this > - maps are cached by a common facility > - each type of mapping has a decoder module > - each type of backing file has a module for handling I/O > > Does this make sense? > > This doesn't have to be implemented in one go, but for example > GET_FMAP could be renamed to GET_READ_MAP with an added offset and > size parameter. For famfs the offset/size would be set to zero/inf. > I'd be content with that for now.
Maybe GET_FILE_MAP or GET_FILE_IOMAP if we want to keep overloading the term iomap. Maps are to backing-dev for regular file systems, and to device memory (devdax) for famfs - in all cases both read and write (when write is allowed). Thanks, John
