[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30364.1537771838@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:50:38 +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:
> Ok, understood. What about passing the different attrs as a struct?
>
> struct mount_attr {
> unsigned int attr_cmd,
> unsigned int attr_values,
> unsigned int attr_mask,
>
> };
>
> mount_setattr(int dfd, const char *path, unsigned int atflags,
> struct mount_attr *attr);
>
> I find that to be a little cleaner in all honesty.
> One could also add a version argument similar to what we currently do
> for vfs fcaps so that kernel and userspace can easily navigate
> compabitility when a new member gets added or removed in later releases.
Yeah, we could do that - it's not like I expect mount_setattr() to have to be
particularly performant in the user interface. I would put the attr_cmd in
the argument list, probably, so that you can use that to vary the struct in
future (say we run out of attribute bits).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists