From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from submarine.notk.org (submarine.notk.org [62.210.214.84]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A8419F13F for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:21:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.210.214.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753914099; cv=none; b=QxIMV08j7pPY0yhE5jDiKpA9KO8qZeN0DYkfrvynwX/HqQ3W6g71BLf0u3DxUOkdaZsS1LC+wY+xybvKVUJh/JAv19gmM7ysc8O9oAnsVR6cvWkc9umx54om9Swq2vIQHBG+vxqOr0z7RcsKa9RftAP1w32Mm0XCn8XfdAyHE0g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753914099; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gPV/fgmzSN1XFnlZAHxb9pvfXXEMpz0osDLD/6DJ3W8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bH35BBjglY1nVmGj25mYJ9jOktbo+7CvVS7bnEAxCCKzkz70TgWcZjDwYwOdfTeHy1I7ecqaIkbZxHvRWr6uE2wBCdD7alUQJcNxZYOl0gn2kilvXq9xIrQW81eZmcgK2JPqKB0hXKi60KEDt9H+9EsbTIE7lFbz4jm/Sj+B5kI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codewreck.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codewreck.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codewreck.org header.i=@codewreck.org header.b=FX6EG+Iy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.210.214.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codewreck.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codewreck.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codewreck.org header.i=@codewreck.org header.b="FX6EG+Iy" Received: from gaia.codewreck.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submarine.notk.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D97C14C2D3; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:21:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codewreck.org; s=2; t=1753914096; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=D6JhiF7KoKNgSPD3zCt9p8g2uKhJH9FPFoUMsjdvKB4=; b=FX6EG+IyhJiM2RBZ/KS+3Jz+TsegqLOZXiLNApe+3/CuS68KAz+BdeCjNcQIOioo3eDx0h 46POYyy2gWBw30aDw88dEg4Y25ArxKMDI+rO6olMTmAKLcgzvAgFrRPAbaFfpX8MQRriA1 zrURvN5QcfKNJtCavzEOqtcdYf8Uv69A2yB/AF2UeODOEBBU0NdAsK1QctGqb/4owV/fQh OROGCfSJGmTli7Jrt6uk7TDV3EQDtuUPcHcG+0Dvb0WfxCnZYQ6il9e27p6oZH9Bk7Dsrh 8WHB6QD/IS7ifZnIrbamYVs7y0/t7hZEh4YLuw5x+eSjWdy9FcPl7z0tyRuBfw== Received: from localhost (gaia.codewreck.org [local]) by gaia.codewreck.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id ad4612f5; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 07:21:17 +0900 From: asmadeus@codewreck.org To: Eric Sandeen Cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ericvh@kernel.org, lucho@ionkov.net, linux_oss@crudebyte.com, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] 9p: convert to the new mount API Message-ID: References: <20250730192511.2161333-1-sandeen@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: v9fs@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250730192511.2161333-1-sandeen@redhat.com> Hi Eric, Eric Sandeen wrote on Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 02:18:51PM -0500: > This is an updated attempt to convert 9p to the new mount API. 9p is > one of the last conversions needed, possibly because it is one of the > trickier ones! Thanks for this work! I think the main contention point here is that we're moving some opaque logic that was in each transport into the common code, so e.g. an out of tree transport can no longer have its own options (not that I'm aware of such a transport existing anyway, so we probably don't have to worry about this) OTOH this is also a blessing because 9p used to silently ignore unknown options, and will now properly refuse them (although it'd still silently ignore e.g. rdma options being set for a virtio mount -- I guess there's little harm in that as long as typos are caught?) So I think I'm fine with the approach. > I was able to test this to some degree, but I am not sure how to test > all transports; there may well be bugs here. It would be great to get > some feedback on whether this approach seems reasonable, and of course > any further review or testing would be most welcome. I still want to de-dust my test setup with rdma over siw for lack of supported hardware, so I'll try to give it a try, but don't necessarily wait for me as I don't know when that'll be.. -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus