[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3868.1537742717@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 23:45:17 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] fsmount: do not use legacy MS_ flags
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> Of course, I'm not sure what the reasons for all of the other arguments to
> this function are since it's not yet implemented.
Well, dfd, path and atflags are pretty standard. atflags conveys things like
AT_EMPTY_PATH or AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW and dfd conveys a file descriptor
pointing to a vfs object or AT_FDCWD.
> Seems that attr_values and attr_mask could be compacted to a single
> attr_mask maybe?
If you don't have a mask, you can't really do recursion. Without the mask,
you have to supply the entire set of options absolutely - and this would get
stamped on everything in the target range.
With a mask in combination with the set of desired values, you can turn on or
off a specific subset of the attributes without affecting the rest - without
needing to know the rest.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists