[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2316806.1596641851@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 16:37:31 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, raven@...maw.net,
mszeredi@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, jannh@...gle.com,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, kzak@...hat.com, jlayton@...hat.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] fsinfo: Allow mount topology and propagation info to be retrieved [ver #21]
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > + __u32 shared_group_id; /* Shared: mount group ID */
> > + __u32 dependent_source_id; /* Dependent: source mount group ID */
> > + __u32 dependent_clone_of_id; /* Dependent: ID of mount this was cloned from */
>
> Another set of ID's that are currently 32bit *internally* but that doesn't
> mean they will always be 32 bit.
>
> And that last one (apart from "slave" being obfuscated)
I had "slave" in there. It got objected to. See
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 4.
> is simply incorrect. It has nothing to do with cloning. It's the "ID of
> the closest peer group in the propagation chain that has a representative
> mount in the current root".
You appear to be in disagreement with others that I've asked.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists