Miklos, ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> The core goal of MUSE is having the complexity on the userspace side and >> only a small MTD driver in kernelspace. >> While playing with different approaches I realized that FUSE offers >> everything >> we need. So MUSE is a little like CUSE except that it does not implement a >> bare character device but an MTD. > > Looks fine.
I'm glad to hear that! > I do wonder if MUSE should go to drivers/mtd/ instead. Long term > goal would be move CUSE to drivers/char and move the transport part of > fuse into net/fuse leaving only the actual filesystems (fuse and > virtiofs) under fs/. > > But for now just moving the minimal interface needed for MUSE into a > separate header (<net/fuse.h>) would work, I guess. > > Do you think that would make sense? Yes, I'm all for having MUSE in drivers/mtd/. I placed MUSE initially in fs/fuse/ because CUSE was already there and muse.c includes fuse_i.h. So tried to be as little invasive as possible. >> >> Notes: >> ------ >> >> - OOB support is currently limited. Currently MUSE has no support for >> processing >> in- and out-band in the same MTD operation. It is good enough to make JFFS2 >> happy. This limitation is because FUSE has no support more than one >> variable >> length buffer in a FUSE request. >> At least I didn’t find a good way to pass more than one buffer to a >> request. >> Maybe FUSE folks can correct me. :-) > > If you look at fuse_do_ioctl() it does variable length input and > output at the same time. I guess you need something similar to that. I'll dig into this! Thanks, //richard
