From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 B2E0E2C859 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 04:01:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774670481; cv=none; b=WnMWdn8SAhkxlTdZAUrfIg6JMB1zUocXjW0roP+0kRNWqO6itTgqbANfiPvOeLWnRtffhDjqFOWFJSIMTKDPudO+tsPZAvxXDLxgSzjBa5tL8viVdhjppPW2dWP0VxU07daY9O92bdzQr1Er9sqDPbTMtn1F6HRDaUJfrqI6z6s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774670481; c=relaxed/simple; bh=spLw8LO71G4HXpzLle+yzSPun4zzkdIR+gErBdn++v0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=szTYclivII5gq9Uxygfa2Rb9HntD8VcgHtYDPDDAKMxXDb9Kyul/LzWx7Ba3CxFuvUsY4sHm/LQ/haf5xk6b59wZ4FdXehVrNtxCPjlAuL9Pf0rwvWgHkSGjZ2scQZH2CSxzygtcr9Z0wE+b+A1Yn0J7pyOmuQn1/kUbE/Nigd0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ep4QDtNR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ep4QDtNR" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E2B1C4CEF7; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 04:01:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1774670481; bh=spLw8LO71G4HXpzLle+yzSPun4zzkdIR+gErBdn++v0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ep4QDtNRLv0AgKzmWJk99rTMHbu/1zHUIkinwV76Ep9TOLNmo7VqCBmeheMMoinWC rYvYKXySR2p5IzFUvZSFdIDNbO71Bpok8u94kj25ZT60/qybAOX9wQtG2F20Vxn3dD VWSObVjj4y1HDCGtY5DVRe6H+6FfPj9mnJrUp9gbr2UJQyoz70/o/XzPnRPbg2jluG qgndpV/P6MsOm8+T894q2cxydSCu2B/ojmK569yfLZSGOgvTkPaVOL6f3YrgmP7ijF TNHeMmFC53ClgSRZbumVVdFBiyaILSXV5OS//aoCVYsHnikyWgHD08mi9vYfHwdeGU LXxZdclACN1Hw== Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 21:01:20 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Bernd Schubert Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , Joanne Koong , Kevin Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/25] Add a new daemonize API Message-ID: <20260328040120.GI6254@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260326-fuse-init-before-mount-v2-0-b1ca8fcbf60f@bsbernd.com> <20260326-fuse-init-before-mount-v2-4-b1ca8fcbf60f@bsbernd.com> <20260327220614.GH6254@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 12:07:35AM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote: > Hi Darrick, I'll send a complete reply on Monday, (it's late Friday night now) so for now ... > My question is now, are you ok with the new fuse_daemonize API? It > sounds a bit like you don't like it too much. ...but I do want to clear up any miscommunication: at this point I don't know enough about the startup process in libfuse to have any strong feelings about the new daemonize API. In thinking about the new API, I had to check my understanding of how things work currently and the requirements of synchronous FUSE_INIT, in order to play around with your proposed solution and to figure out if there were other ways to solve it. I asked a lot of questions because of my own unfamiliarity with the subject, and I'm sorry that it came off more aggressively than I meant. No hard feelings, I hope! :) --D