[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1692826.1596457912@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:31:52 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, andres@...razel.de,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, dray@...hat.com,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> > I'm changing it so that the fields are 64-bit, but initialised with the
> > existing mount ID in the notifications set. The fsinfo set changes that
> > to a unique ID. I'm tempted to make the unique IDs start at UINT_MAX+1 to
> > disambiguate them.
>
> Mmm ... so what would I use as a mount id that's not used, like NULL
> for strings?
Zero is skipped, so you could use that.
> I'm using -1 now but changing this will mean I need something
> different.
It's 64-bits, so you're not likely to see it reach -1, even if it does start
at UINT_MAX+1.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists