On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 3:25 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 7:32 PM Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Based on our discussion, I put together two simple patches. > > > > The first adds an optional extra parameter to FUSE_LOOKUP outargs. This allows > > the daemon to set a backing file at lookup time on a successful lookup. > > > > I then looked at which opcodes do not require a file handle. The simplest seem > > to be FUSE_MKDIR and FUSE_RMDIR. So I implemented passthrough handling for these > > opcodes in the second patch. > > > > Both patches sit on top of Amir's tree at: > > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commit/ceaf7f16452f6aaf7993279b1c10e727d6bf6a32 > > > > I think you based your patches on ceaf7f16452f^ and patch 1/2 replaces commit > ceaf7f16452f ("fuse: support setting backing inode passthrough on getattr") > > Right? > > That makes sense to me because that last patch was a hacky API, > but then you made some other changes to my patch which I did not understand why. Push a new version of fuse-backing-inode-wip based on https://github.com/amir73il/libfuse/commits/fuse_passthrough_iops/ Please base your work on the above branch with the helpers instead of modifying them. Thanks, Amir.
