[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base)
From: |
Dr. David Alan Gilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base) |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:54:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) |
* Michael S. Tsirkin (address@hidden) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Daniel P. Berrangé (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:59:33AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:33:57PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > > * address@hidden (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > > > > Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/address@hidden/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output
> > > > > > below for
> > > > > > more information:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base)
> > > > > > Type: series
> > > > > > Message-id: address@hidden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
> > > > > > #!/bin/bash
> > > > > > git rev-parse base > /dev/null || exit 0
> > > > > > git config --local diff.renamelimit 0
> > > > > > git config --local diff.renames True
> > > > > > git config --local diff.algorithm histogram
> > > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback base..
> > > > >
> > > > > Expecting checkpatch to be broken here; most of the files
> > > > > follow FUSE's formatting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what do others think about this.
> > > > One problem with such inconsistencies is that people tend to copy code
> > > > around, which tends to result in a mess.
> > >
> > > IIUC, most of this code is simpy copied as-is from the fuse or linux
> > > git repos. I'm wondering what the intention is for it long term ?
> > >
> > > For header files, I would have expected us to be able to compile against
> > > the -devel package provided by the kernel or fuse packages. I can
> > > understand if we want to import the headers if the VSOCK additions to
> > > them are not yet widely available in distros though. If this is the case
> > > we should put a time limit on how long we'd keep these copied headers
> > > around for before dropping them. It would be fine to violate QEMU coding
> > > style in this case as its not code QEMU would "maintain" long term - just
> > > a read-only import.
> >
> > The headers are really two types; one are external definitions, the
> > other are internal parts of libfuse. I'd expect to keep the internal
> > parts long term; teh external parts hmm; where would we pull them in
> > externally from?
> >
> > > The source files though, we appear to then be modifying locally, which
> > > suggests they'll live in our repo forever. In this case I'd expect to
> > > have compliance with QEMU coding standards.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > I'm surprised we need to copy so much in from fuse though. Is there a
> > > case to be made for fuse to provide a library of APIs for people who
> > > are building fuse daemons to link against, instead of copy & fork ?
> >
> > libfuse *is* such a library; but it preserves ABI compliance; it's
> > intention is to be used to build filesystem implementations on top of -
> > and that's got a fairly good separation; however changing the fuse
> > transport, and security models is much more invasive than it was
> > designed for.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> I guess you did try to propose adding the functionality to the libfuse
> maintainer and got rejected? If not it's worth asking.
I looked at it; we started off thinking we'd merge much of it up there -
but there's at least two problems:
a) Our libvhost-user isn't a separable library either - so we'd need
to copy it into libfuse which is just as big a problem.
b) It's not additional interfaces, it's changes to existing APIs that
break A*B*I compatibility that are very hard to avoid when you're
changing the transport.
Also, we're not just changing the transport - if you look at the
security patchset we're inverting the security model and there's a bunch
of threading changes that you haven't got yet.
Dave
>
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Daniel
> > > --
> > > |: https://berrange.com -o-
> > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> > > |: https://libvirt.org -o-
> > > https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o-
> > > https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
> > --
> > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
- [PATCH 29/30] virtiofsd: add --print-capabilities option, (continued)
- [PATCH 29/30] virtiofsd: add --print-capabilities option, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git), 2019/10/21
- [PATCH 30/30] virtiofs: Add maintainers entry, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git), 2019/10/21
- [PATCH 28/30] virtiofsd: add vhost-user.json file, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git), 2019/10/21
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), no-reply, 2019/10/21
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2019/10/21
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base),
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <=
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2019/10/24
- Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2019/10/24
Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2019/10/24
Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2019/10/27
Re: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2019/10/29