Re: [PATCH V12 02/12] famfs: Module operations, fs_context, and mount

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 8/22/26 23:55, John Groves wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026, at 2:39 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 at 13:40, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> (a) Whether a fuse-based approach is feasible.
>>>
>>>     Are there any major blockers remaining?
>>
>> No.


Thanks both for your input. I see still some disagreement, but ...

> 
> Famfs does work in fuse, but some of the asks are things that I don't see
> how I can agree to. I think Miklos and I should discuss those 1:1, to figure
> out if there is a way forward.

... I think this is the right approach. If you want more people involved, just
speak up.

>>
>> We (Amir, Joanne, me) explained to John how this is exactly what's
>> needed to make famfs work.  We've not seen an acceptance of that yet.
> 
> I am not feeling that my technical concerns have been heard and 
> understood, and I have not thought that the suggested changes to famfs 
> would preserve its fitness for purpose. 
> 
> Whether I'm right or wrong can be figured out if we discuss it 1:1. The 
> on-list conversations have been something that my cardiologist asked
> me to stop reading. (only semi-joking)

Yeah, I think there are some misunderstandings, and if you can figure that out
in a 1:1, and let the outcome be known to the rest of us, that would be great.

-- 
Cheers,

David