Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes? - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes? - Plan9 ; Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse implementations were compatible. On 29 Mar 2007, at 12:59, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote: > Well, I do bother. > I use (or rather, would like to use) FUSE to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

  1. Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse
    implementations were compatible.

    On 29 Mar 2007, at 12:59, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:

    > Well, I do bother.
    > I use (or rather, would like to use) FUSE to mount in MacOS a
    > namespace
    > from a local inferno. Thatīs what we do to make all the devices in
    > our octopus
    > available even for the host system.
    >
    > I mean, Iīd like to get fuse for 9p in macosx working properly.
    > Iīm sorry I did not put the effort for doing it, thatīs why I did not
    > complaint, but
    > itīs still low in my to-do list.
    >
    >
    > On 3/29/07, Uriel wrote:
    >> > BTW, I don't know when you started using FUSE on Linux, but it's

    >> been
    >> > there on Linux at least since 2001. MacFUSE came out in 2007, so

    >> your
    >> > surprise is surprising.

    >>
    >> 9P has been around for 20 years, what I find surprising is why anyone
    >> would bother with FUSE.
    >>
    >>
    >> > The subterfuge is intentional and necessary in the current

    >> design. The
    >> > open() and close() vnode operations of MacFUSE *do not* have

    >> access to
    >> > the file descriptor in question. The data structures involved are
    >> > opaque, so it'd be quite ugly and unmaintainable to try to get

    >> at the
    >> > descriptor by brute force. Given the lack of descriptor, you can't
    >> > match opens and closes. Along the same lines, MacFUSE only can

    >> look at
    >> > the vnode, and *not* at file structures, which are inaccessible.

    >> You
    >> > can't track connections between file structures and FUSE file

    >> handles.
    >> > Therefore, as a matter of feasibility and simplicity, MacFUSE

    >> shares
    >> > file handles when possible, with reference counting. For multiple
    >> > opens of a single given file, you won't see every open

    >> invocation go
    >> > up to user space unless the open flags are different from a

    >> previous
    >> > invocation.

    >>
    >> The more I learn about FUSE, the more broken by design it seems. What
    >> is the point of userspace file systems if they can't even handle
    >> open() and close() in any meaningful way?
    >>
    >> Ah, the eternal re-invention of square wheels. How infinitely sad
    >> *sigh*
    >>
    >> uriel
    >>
    >>



  2. Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?

    On Mar 29, 3:15 am, boris.marys...@gmail.com (Boris Maryshev) wrote:
    > Unix or not, it would be much appreciated if different fuse
    > implementations were compatible.


    Certainly. However:

    FUSE was originally designed/implemented for Linux. Unlike Mac OS X,
    which has a FreeBSD-like (but not the same) vnode-centric file system
    architecture, the Linux file system layer is file-centric. This causes
    several issues, combined with the nature of Mac OS X kernel
    interfaces. Therefore, a 100% faithful FUSE API implementation is not
    currently feasible on Mac OS X *under realistic circumstances*. That's
    all.

+ Reply to Thread