Re: [PATCH] fuse.4: Add new file describing /dev/fuse

["Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>]

On 12/11/2016 04:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2016 10:13 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Dec 10 2016, Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com> wrote:
>>>> This is my writeup of a basic description of /dev/fuse after playing 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 interface.
>>>
>>> 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-mount
>>> 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...

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/