On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 at 23:55, John Groves <[email protected]> wrote: > Famfs does work in fuse, but some of the asks are things that I don't see > how I can agree to. I think Miklos and I should discuss those 1:1, to figure > out if there is a way forward. > > I think the virtual backing-dev thing is a non-starter,
The virtual backing-dev is an abstraction. Is it sufficient for you if I promise that this is going to do the same thing as the standalone famfs at the same performance level? > and I think that the famfs > portion of the fuse ABI basically can't live without extents that are > (daxdev, offset, length). Sigh. My proposal was (backing-id, offset, length). Again this is an abstraction. A backing ID can be a daxdev, a striped logical device or it can be a block dev or even a plain file. > Also, I'm curious: if you don't know of a use case for the striping code > outside > of famfs, why ask famfs to completely rewrite that? (and I agree, other > than the eventual remote possibility of competing 'famfs-ng' fuse servers, > I don't see much likelihood that this piece will be shared.) Because the striping feature fits much better into a virtual device API than the extent mapping API. This is how striping has worked in linux for the last 30 years. > Miklos, I trust that you are a good faith actor, although you seem to be > spread pretty thin. Can you commit to a series of 1:1 conversations with > me to try to work through the disconnects? Fine, let's find a time. Thanks, Miklos
