Draft: Add back -o hard_remove flag #301
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
To force immediate file removal. No .fuse_hiddenXXX files please.
|
Tests are needed since the unit tests crashed with SIGSEGV when I forced hard_remove=1. Drafting. |
kalvdans
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See libfuse commit 8ee553dac029 ("fuse_new(): don't accept options that don't make sense for end-users") for details.
Our usecase depend on hard_remove behaviour, so in order to make it continue to work we have applied this patch. I hope it can be useful for others. Documentation is needed before merge.