On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 at 13:47:33 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
I also wonder whether it would be better for fuse_set_feature_flag()
and fuse_unset_feature_flag() to set/unset the relevant flag in
conn->want *and* conn->want_ext, if it happens to be below the 32-bit
boundary. That way, "fuse_lower_32_bits(conn->want_ext) != conn->want"
would usually be false and we would not have any inconsistency.
Unfortunately fuse_set_feature_flag() and fuse_unset_feature_flag() are
inlined (somewhat defeating the purpose of encapsulating access to struct
members...) so if this turns out to be part of a solution, then gvfs and
all other callers will need binNMUs to pick up that change.
smcv
