On 7/30/25 5:21 PM, asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Eric Sandeen wrote on Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 02:18:51PM -0500: >> This is an updated attempt to convert 9p to the new mount API. 9p is >> one of the last conversions needed, possibly because it is one of the >> trickier ones! > > Thanks for this work! > > 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) > > 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?) > > So I think I'm fine with the approach. > >> I was able to test this to some degree, but I am not sure how to test >> all transports; there may well be bugs here. It would be great to get >> some feedback on whether this approach seems reasonable, and of course >> any further review or testing would be most welcome. > > I still want to de-dust my test setup with rdma over siw for lack of > supported hardware, so I'll try to give it a try, but don't necessarily > wait for me as I don't know when that'll be.. > Any news on testing? :) As for "waiting for you," I assume that's more for your maintainer peers than for me? I'm not sure if this would go through Christian (cc'd) or through you? Thanks, -Eric
