From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolaus Rath Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse.4: Add new file describing /dev/fuse Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:49:10 -0800 Message-ID: <87oa0fu3c9.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> References: <20161210072018.GA5267@juliacomputing.com> <87vaurbi7q.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <1557a45c-8282-d181-1533-0204895ddc9b@gmail.com> <871sxea3et.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <87k2b68clj.fsf@vostro.rath.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Michael Kerrisk's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:21:06 +0100") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Keno Fischer , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On Dec 12 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrot= e: > On 12/11/2016 08:55 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" w= rote: >>> On 12/11/2016 04:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >>>> On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" = wrote: >>>>> On 12/10/2016 10:13 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 10 2016, Keno Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> This is my writeup of a basic description of /dev/fuse after playin= g with >>>>>>> it for a few hours today. It is of course woefully incomplete, and = since >>>>>>> I neither have a use case nor am working on this code, I will not be >>>>>>> in a position to expand it in the near future. However, I'm hoping = this >>>>>>> could still serve as a handy reference for others looking at this i= nterface. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's great! It makes me wonder: >>>>>> >>>>>> At the moment, libfuse ships a mount.fuse(8) manpage that documents = both >>>>>> the mount options that can be passed to the kernel, and the pseudo-m= ount >>>>>> options that can be used when using libfuse (but that are actually >>>>>> implemented in userspace). >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it make sense to remove everything kernel related from >>>>>> mount.fuse(8) and move it into linux-manpages? >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the manpage I'm talking about: >>>>>> https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/blob/master/doc/mount.fuse.8 >>>>> >>>>> I can see pros and cons. mount(8) does a similar thing >>>>> for mount options understood by the kernel. So there is precedent >>>>> for the approach taken in mount.fuse.8 >>>> >>>> The difference is that all the options in mount(8) are meant to be used >>>> by the user calling mount, while a good fraction of the (kernel) mount >>>> options for FUSE filesystems are not meant to be passed by the user but >>>> must be generated by the filesystem internally. >>> >>> Okay -- that's a significant difference. So, I see the logic of >>> the proposal... >>=20 >> In that case, what do you think would be the best place? Add a new >> manpage? Add them to mount(8)? Or to fuse(4)? > > I wonder about possibly a fuse(7) page? Sounds good to me. I'll see what I can do. I've added https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/131 as a reminder. Best, -Nikolaus --=20 GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F =C2=BBTime flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.=C2= =AB From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:51534 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934682AbcLMR4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:56:17 -0500 From: Nikolaus Rath To: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" Cc: Keno Fischer , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse.4: Add new file describing /dev/fuse References: <20161210072018.GA5267@juliacomputing.com> <87vaurbi7q.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <1557a45c-8282-d181-1533-0204895ddc9b@gmail.com> <871sxea3et.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <87k2b68clj.fsf@vostro.rath.org> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:49:10 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Michael Kerrisk's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:21:06 +0100") Message-ID: <87oa0fu3c9.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Dec 12 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrot= e: > On 12/11/2016 08:55 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" w= rote: >>> On 12/11/2016 04:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >>>> On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" = wrote: >>>>> On 12/10/2016 10:13 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 10 2016, Keno Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> This is my writeup of a basic description of /dev/fuse after playin= g with >>>>>>> it for a few hours today. It is of course woefully incomplete, and = since >>>>>>> I neither have a use case nor am working on this code, I will not be >>>>>>> in a position to expand it in the near future. However, I'm hoping = this >>>>>>> could still serve as a handy reference for others looking at this i= nterface. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's great! It makes me wonder: >>>>>> >>>>>> At the moment, libfuse ships a mount.fuse(8) manpage that documents = both >>>>>> the mount options that can be passed to the kernel, and the pseudo-m= ount >>>>>> options that can be used when using libfuse (but that are actually >>>>>> implemented in userspace). >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it make sense to remove everything kernel related from >>>>>> mount.fuse(8) and move it into linux-manpages? >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the manpage I'm talking about: >>>>>> https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/blob/master/doc/mount.fuse.8 >>>>> >>>>> I can see pros and cons. mount(8) does a similar thing >>>>> for mount options understood by the kernel. So there is precedent >>>>> for the approach taken in mount.fuse.8 >>>> >>>> The difference is that all the options in mount(8) are meant to be used >>>> by the user calling mount, while a good fraction of the (kernel) mount >>>> options for FUSE filesystems are not meant to be passed by the user but >>>> must be generated by the filesystem internally. >>> >>> Okay -- that's a significant difference. So, I see the logic of >>> the proposal... >>=20 >> In that case, what do you think would be the best place? Add a new >> manpage? Add them to mount(8)? Or to fuse(4)? > > I wonder about possibly a fuse(7) page? Sounds good to me. I'll see what I can do. I've added https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/131 as a reminder. Best, -Nikolaus --=20 GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F =C2=BBTime flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.=C2= =AB