1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
[[!toc]]
# Argument Parsing
## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-27
<teythoon> the arg parsing in libdiskfs and libnetfs differ :/
<teythoon> afaics libdiskfs gets it right, libnetfs does not
<pinotree> what do you mean?
<teythoon> wrt to *_std_{runtime,startup}_argp
<teythoon> see eg netfs.h
<teythoon> libdiskfs/opts-std-runtime.c:const struct argp
diskfs_std_runtime_argp =
<teythoon> libdiskfs/opts-std-runtime.c-{
<teythoon> libdiskfs/opts-std-runtime.c- std_runtime_options, parse_opt,
0, 0, children
<teythoon> libdiskfs/opts-std-runtime.c-};
<teythoon> but
<teythoon> libnetfs/std-runtime-argp.c:const struct argp
netfs_std_runtime_argp = { 0 };
<pinotree> well there are no common startup/runtime options provided by
netfs
<pinotree> usually netfs-based translators put netfs_std_startup_argp as
child as their options, so if netfs starts providing options they would
work
<teythoon> ah
<pinotree> if you have a test showing issues, we can certainly look it :)
<teythoon> ok, m/b I was confused...
<pinotree> no worries, feel free to ask anytime
<teythoon> I thought about providing --update as common runtime flag, like
diskfs does, you think it's the right thing to do?
<pinotree> what would it do?
<teythoon> or should it be left for each translator to implement?
<teythoon> nothing by default I guess
<pinotree> options provided in libdiskfs are implemented and handled mostly
in libdiskfs itself
<pinotree> so imho a new option for libnetfs would be there because its
behaviour is implemented mostly within libnetfs itself
<teythoon> libdiskfs calls diskfs_reload_global_state
<teythoon> libnetfs could do the same, allowing translators to plug in
anything they wish
<teythoon> but I'll implement it in procfs for the time being
<pinotree> ah, its alias is remount
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> I need that working for procfs
<teythoon> btw, I think I got your mount confusion thing figured out
<pinotree> but procfs has nothing to update/flush, all the information are
fetched at every rpc
<teythoon> yes
<teythoon> but we still need to ignore the flag
<teythoon> otherwise the set_options rpc fails
<teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/12938/
<teythoon> whee, remounting proc works :)
<braunr> :)
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-29
<teythoon> so, what do you folks think about refactoring libdiskfs and
libnetfs to be more alike?
<pinotree> what do you mean?
<teythoon> ah, I mentioned that in the context of my mtab prototype
1374247519-26589-1-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de
<teythoon> they are hard to diff against each other b/c they differ in file
names and identifier names
<teythoon> while working on the mtab stuff I encountered stuff that was
implemented in libdiskfs, but never in libnetfs
<teythoon> mostly support for binding translators to libnetfs nodes
<braunr> teythoon: sure, but looks a little out of scope
<teythoon> braunr: I do not mean now, more in general
<braunr> ok
<tschwinge> teythoon: I wondered about this, too. I don't know if it's
possible to literally merge them (and build the backend-based (libdiskfs)
vs. volatile-backend one (libnetfs) based on a pre-processor define or
similar), or just structure the source code (files) in a way such that
»diff -ru libdiskfs/ libnetfs/« gives meaningful results, figuratively
spoken.
<teythoon> tschwinge: my thoughts exactly
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-28
<teythoon> braunr: do you think another lib*fs would be frowned uppon? I
like the way procfs is structured and that could be refactored and
generalized into a library
<braunr> i think we need more lib*fs libraries
<braunr> and better integration
<braunr> that's one of the strengths in linux
<braunr> it makes writing file systems very easy
<teythoon> cool :)
<teythoon> now we only need a snappy name, any suggestions?
<braunr> i don't know what you like specificlaly in procfs
<braunr> libpseudofs ?
<teythoon> well, it's not perfect, but i like the way you just have to
implement a function for a node and it magically gains the ability to
being read
<teythoon> for example
<braunr> yes i see
<pinotree> lacks a bit of caching though
<braunr> no caching for such file systems
<teythoon> indeed
<braunr> why would you want caching ?
<pinotree> you might have files that don't change at all, or rarely do
<braunr> the premise is that it's meant for files generated on the fly
<braunr> but are they big ?
|
