> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:02 +0000 > From: co...@sdf.org > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:55:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: > > <co...@sdf.org> 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?'
