On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:30:54PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:46:11PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > v3:
> > > * Remove notifications virtqueue, it's unimplemented and can be added when
> > > needed [Miklos]
> > > * Add Security Considerations and Live Migration Considerations sections
> > > [Michael]
> > > v2:
> > > * Clean up core virtio file system device spec
> > > * Add DAX window
> > >
> > > These patches add the virtio file system device, which is based on Linux FUSE
> > > but includes the DAX window extension. Similar to virtio-scsi, which
> > > transports SCSI commands, virtio-fs transports FUSE requests and the protocol
> > > documentation is not duplicated here.
> >
> > I think I prefer virtio-fuse as a name. Let's be a bit more
> > specific: we might want to add more filesystem devices later on.
>
> virtio-fs is not FUSE. Existing FUSE file system daemons cannot be
> used.
Right.
> It would be confusing to call it FUSE. The wire protocol is indeed
> based on FUSE but from a user perspective it's a completely different
> system.
I agree.
> The virtio-fs device extends the FUSE protocol with the
> virtualization-specific DAX window (and the in-development shared
> metadata versioning data structures that will be added to a future
> spec).
>
> Finally, users are likely to be confused and associate virtio-fuse with
> outdated FUSE issues that have long since been solved. virtio-fs
> performs really well and that's not something that people associate with
> FUSE :-).
>
> For these reasons I think we should continue to call it virtio-fs.
>
> Stefan
I just wish we came up with something more specific than
"a filesystem". Any ideas?
--
MST
