From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-112.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-112.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA1E9443 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.112 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737078069; cv=none; b=iUzep+opl0UlYJVYmhwDKfvqbdB1O6+yOxUzL4fMJgdxch9o0hRp/z6eqKvQ4SzgR5LXRsE3gdASmHOSPHeJW5EOL7Cfr/9a9IYVXW73rMRCert0nuc6GGbhIoYdx37wlUFq7SZ8dLitkCtXo5UL50wCOpes1WjKLn/WV7h21fI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737078069; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EBflKdN3O80LCk6ZA56ceOfEEtWOk1DSKmZ4XTOKNhw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ow/iEcxwss81hjAZEwNwVELdmYbY16o0bSc+sD1yi8KqX/bF4XLezBlSC2V3vxmmdkfQJ9oGmlCXU5G63Hg7KgI/500hQNg/TMdIGX8Dh0bNeqlz5ujfioffBu87RR2OMFk6bpE35GMX64ZS+mYH2N894d8FNauXeA8fQlAAodA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=U1gQSG/J; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.112 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="U1gQSG/J" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1737078063; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=hWBT9uXle6g8wdcoKxsaVYoFiBcIQQpW6iPD4exFtPY=; b=U1gQSG/JbzugL5CNYRxOZTmfnQ74QjRP0hRB/ipxBo4kwN5RNa8k5HKZ08h0YU0U2+QvDrgsPZDccCWbmlqvUSH0Dy4QBI/wfSktwXfROBp7IL2MFTghvC4V+so30319YNYNCDkQ/nYdZtjEP2MyVNcrEVYP3pJib658OfOFhTg= Received: from 30.221.145.14(mailfrom:jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WNmus3M_1737078061 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:41:02 +0800 Message-ID: <1dfcf698-2c85-458c-820a-ca9ec4d26de3@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:40:59 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/2] fuse: add kernel-enforced request timeout option To: Miklos Szeredi , Joanne Koong Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm, laoar.shao@gmail.com, jlayton@kernel.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org, tfiga@chromium.org, bgeffon@google.com, etmartin4313@gmail.com, kernel-team@meta.com References: <20241218222630.99920-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jingbo Xu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/16/25 8:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 20:41, Joanne Koong wrote: > >> Miklos, is this patchset acceptable for your tree? > > Looks good generally. > > I wonder why you chose to use a mount option instead of an FUSE_INIT param? IMO this timeout mechanism has no dependence on the implementation on the server side, and it's self-contained by the kernel side. Thus it's adequate to negotiate through the mount option instead of the INIT feature negotiation. Although the FUSE mount instance is generally mounted by the fuse server itself in the libfuse implementation. IOW INIT feature negotiation is required only when the server side shall opt in. -- Thanks, Jingbo