wrote:
> 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.
Sure, go ahead for the short term, but my point is that in the long run,
your life could be
Taylor R Campbell writes:
>> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:02 +
>> From: co...@sdf.org
>> 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.
>
>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:19:38PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:02 +
> > From: co...@sdf.org
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:55:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If anything we should get rid of perfuse.
> > >
> > > FUSE ha
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:02 +
> From: co...@sdf.org
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:55:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If anything we should get rid of perfuse.
> >
> > FUSE has thee API: kernel level, low level and high level.
> >
> > refuse only implements t
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:55:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> 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
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 FUS
co...@sdf.org writes:
> No, upstream FUSE loves having every downstream filesystem get adjusted
> whenever it decides an argument isn't useful any more.
So you are proposing to provide more compat than mainstream fuse, and we
would add a -D argument to packages that need it, on NetBSD only, and
t
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:44:44PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> co...@sdf.org 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"
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:46:57PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> co...@sdf.org writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> >>
> >> +#if FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30
> >> +#define fuse_unmount fuse_unmount_compat30
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Open to (FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30) &&
co...@sdf.org writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>>
>> +#if FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30
>> +#define fuse_unmount fuse_unmount_compat30
>> +#endif
>
> Open to (FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30) && (FUSE_USE_VERSION > 22) :-)
Don't you need defined(FUSE_USE_VERSION) also? Or
co...@sdf.org 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 reason
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:23:28PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> co...@sdf.org writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:22:22PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> >> > Tell me what you think. I will commit it soon otherwise.
> >>
> >
co...@sdf.org writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:22:22PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> > Tell me what you think. I will commit it soon otherwise.
>>
>> You know we support vnilla libfuse through libperfuse, right?
>>
>> --
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:22:22PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> > Tell me what you think. I will commit it soon otherwise.
>
> You know we support vnilla libfuse through libperfuse, right?
>
> --
> Emmanuel Dreyfus
> m...@netbs
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Tell me what you think. I will commit it soon otherwise.
You know we support vnilla libfuse through libperfuse, right?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:16:30PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>
> +#if FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30
> +#define fuse_unmount fuse_unmount_compat30
> +#endif
Open to (FUSE_USE_VERSION < 30) && (FUSE_USE_VERSION > 22) :-)
hi folks,
this adds the version of fuse_mount, fuse_new, fuse_unmount between FUSE
2.2 and FUSE 3.0 as compat shims.
This is used by fuse-ntfs-3g, fuse-encfs.
This also adds fuse_version. This is used by fuse-ext2 that is being
patched in pkgsrc.
Tell me what you think. I will commit it soon ot
17 matches
Mail list logo
