Re: [PATCH 3/5] fuse: move the passthrough-specific code back to passthrough.c

Darrick J. Wong
2025-09-19T17:43:48Z

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 09:34:06AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 20:02, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 04:47:19AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> > > I think at this point in time FUSE_PASSTHROUGH and
> > > FUSE_IOMAP should be mutually exclusive and
> > > fuse_backing_ops could be set at fc level.
> > > If we want to move them for per fuse_backing later
> > > we can always do that when the use cases and tests arrive.
> >
> > With Miklos' ok I'll constrain fuse not to allow passthrough and iomap
> > files on the same filesystem, but as it is now there's no technical
> > reason to make it so that they can't coexist.
>
> Is there a good reason to add the restriction? If restricting it
> doesn't simplify anything or even makes it more complex, then I'd opt
> for leaving it more general, even if it doesn't seem to make sense.

I don't have a good reason to add a restriction; it's entirely Amir's
concern about testing the two together.

--D

> Thanks,
> Miklos