Re: [PATCH 07/19] Add FUSE_MOUNT_FALLBACK_NEEDED define for -2 mount errors

[Bernd Schubert <bernd@bsbernd.com>]

On 3/23/26 23:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 06:45:02PM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>> From: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
>>
>> Magic numbers in the code are not good - we better use a define.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/fuse_i.h | 3 +++
>>  lib/mount.c  | 6 +++---
>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/fuse_i.h b/lib/fuse_i.h
>> index 9e3c5dc5021e210a2778e975a37ab609af324010..b4c1d3eef41010287f6c9555ec0b2442d904d192 100644
>> --- a/lib/fuse_i.h
>> +++ b/lib/fuse_i.h
>> @@ -217,6 +217,9 @@ struct fuse_chan *fuse_chan_get(struct fuse_chan *ch);
>>   */
>>  void fuse_chan_put(struct fuse_chan *ch);
>>  
>> +/* Special return value for mount functions to indicate fallback to fusermount3 is needed */
>> +#define FUSE_MOUNT_FALLBACK_NEEDED -2
> 
> ...and you might want to put that in parentheses to avoid weird
> interactions elsewhere.  Or maybe just make fuse_kern_do_mount return an
> enum so that callers have to handle FUSE_MOUNT_{OK,FAIL,FALLBACK} and
> can do so via switch statements?

I'm going the simple way for now and put it in parentheses. I think the
old API needs further clean up later on.

Thanks,
Bernd