u-codalist-z149_at_aetey.se writes:

> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 10:22:32AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> > A "modified FUSE" is conceptually the same as a "Coda-specific kernel
>> > interface", unless you convince the world that the wannabe new feature
>> > is useful for "everyone" or at least for "many", besides Coda :(
>> 
>> Yes, but for any filesystem that has container files for local copies,
>> the passthrough is useful.  So it is far more broadly useful than coda.
>> It could be an optional extension, used if present, and put into a few
>> FUSE implementations.
>
> It looks definitely useful, but is there any filesystem other than Coda,
> willing to benefit from such a capability? I do not mean to sound negative,
> I just do not know the answer.

AFS :-)

But it seems like any distributed system should have a way to have
cached copies of thing it has read.  So I agree that I don't know the
answer either.