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 ?