From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35411 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753553AbcLKSQZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:16:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse.4: Add new file describing /dev/fuse To: Nikolaus Rath References: <20161210072018.GA5267@juliacomputing.com> <87vaurbi7q.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <1557a45c-8282-d181-1533-0204895ddc9b@gmail.com> <871sxea3et.fsf@vostro.rath.org> Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Keno Fischer , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:16:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871sxea3et.fsf@vostro.rath.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/11/2016 04:31 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Dec 11 2016, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 10:13 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Dec 10 2016, Keno Fischer wrote: >>>> This is my writeup of a basic description of /dev/fuse after playing with >>>> it for a few hours today. It is of course woefully incomplete, and since >>>> I neither have a use case nor am working on this code, I will not be >>>> in a position to expand it in the near future. However, I'm hoping this >>>> could still serve as a handy reference for others looking at this interface. >>> >>> That's great! It makes me wonder: >>> >>> At the moment, libfuse ships a mount.fuse(8) manpage that documents both >>> the mount options that can be passed to the kernel, and the pseudo-mount >>> options that can be used when using libfuse (but that are actually >>> implemented in userspace). >>> >>> Would it make sense to remove everything kernel related from >>> mount.fuse(8) and move it into linux-manpages? >>> >>> Here's the manpage I'm talking about: >>> https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/blob/master/doc/mount.fuse.8 >> >> I can see pros and cons. mount(8) does a similar thing >> for mount options understood by the kernel. So there is precedent >> for the approach taken in mount.fuse.8 > > The difference is that all the options in mount(8) are meant to be used > by the user calling mount, while a good fraction of the (kernel) mount > options for FUSE filesystems are not meant to be passed by the user but > must be generated by the filesystem internally. Okay -- that's a significant difference. So, I see the logic of the proposal... Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/