Eric Sandeen wrote on Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 08:38:17PM -0500: > > I think the main contention point here is that we're moving some opaque > > logic that was in each transport into the common code, so e.g. an out of > > tree transport can no longer have its own options (not that I'm aware of > > such a transport existing anyway, so we probably don't have to worry > > about this) > > I had not thought about out of tree transports. And I was a little unsure > about moving everything into fs/9p/* but I'm not sure I saw any other way > to do it in the new framework. @dhowells? I've had a quick look as well and I don't see either -- parameters are parsed one at a time so we can't do the two passes needed to first get the transport out of the arguments and then instantiate a transport and parse again. I really think it's fine in practice, just something to remember. > > OTOH this is also a blessing because 9p used to silently ignore unknown > > options, and will now properly refuse them (although it'd still silently > > ignore e.g. rdma options being set for a virtio mount -- I guess there's > > little harm in that as long as typos are caught?) > > Well, that might be considered a regression. Such conversions have burned > us before, so if you want, it might be possible to keep the old more > permissive behavior ... I'd have to look, not sure.
