Re: [PATCH V12 02/12] famfs: Module operations, fs_context, and mount

["John Groves" <john@groves.net>]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, at 2:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 at 23:55, John Groves <john@groves.net> 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
> 

I'll ping you directly about times to talk. Thank you for being willing to do that.

Regards,
John