On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 01:13:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 03:43:31PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > ...however the strongest case (IMO) would be if (having merged famfs) we > > then merge fuse-iomap after famfs. Then we extend the existing > > fuse-iomap-bpf prototype to allow per-mount and per-inode iomap bpf ops. > > That enables us to analyze thoroughly the performance characteristics of: > > Don't go there. I think that you two are comining up with two > interfaces for roughly the same thing is a pretty clear indicator > that this needs to be fully hashed out as a single interface first, > and any kind of preliminary merging is just going to create problems. >
We're not sure how deep this rathole goes, and John's work has been in the rathole for a few years now. Hence the desire to hedge. But it's obvious no decisions will be made before LSFMM - so we can take a breath and chew on it. Maybe we'll get there in person. ~Gregory
