On 8/22/26 23:55, John Groves wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2026, at 2:39 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 at 13:40, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> (a) Whether a fuse-based approach is feasible. >>> >>> Are there any major blockers remaining? >> >> No.
Thanks both for your input. I see still some disagreement, but ... > > 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 this is the right approach. If you want more people involved, just speak up. >> >> We (Amir, Joanne, me) explained to John how this is exactly what's >> needed to make famfs work. We've not seen an acceptance of that yet. > > I am not feeling that my technical concerns have been heard and > understood, and I have not thought that the suggested changes to famfs > would preserve its fitness for purpose. > > Whether I'm right or wrong can be figured out if we discuss it 1:1. The > on-list conversations have been something that my cardiologist asked > me to stop reading. (only semi-joking) Yeah, I think there are some misunderstandings, and if you can figure that out in a 1:1, and let the outcome be known to the rest of us, that would be great. -- Cheers, David
