Hi everyone, Thanks for the feedback. So far, I have received several replies regarding the 32-bit CephFS kernel client usage. Based on the responses, there do not appear to be any active users of 32-bit builds, and I have not received any objections to moving forward with a 64-bit-only implementation. Therefore, I will continue working on the patch to remove 32-bit support and proceed with the 64-bit-only approach. I will make sure the change is properly documented, including the deprecation/removal of 32-bit support in the relevant release notes. Thanks again for the feedback and discussion. Best regards, Xiubo On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 16:53, Xiubo Li <xiubo.li@clyso.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
We are considering a performance improvement for the CephFS kernel client (kclient) that would be significantly simpler and cleaner to implement as 64-bit-only. Supporting 32-bit in this case adds non-trivial complexity and ongoing maintenance burden, so we'd like to understand whether continuing 32-bit support is still necessary.
Before making any decision, we want to hear from the community:
- Are you currently using, or planning to use, 32-bit (arm/armhf, i386/i686) builds of the CephFS kernel client? - If yes, is this for production workloads? Or legacy/testing purposes? - What is your platform (distribution, kernel version, architecture)?
If there are no active 32-bit users, we would proceed with a 64-bit-only implementation and clearly document the deprecation in the release notes with appropriate warnings.
If 32-bit support is still needed, we will explore alternative approaches — for example, keeping the current code path for 32-bit while the new fast path is 64-bit-only, or finding a way to cleanly abstract the difference.
Please reply by August 6, 2026 so we can factor your feedback into the plan.
Thanks! Xiubo Li