[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlW4IWMYxtwbeI7I@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 03:55:29 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to
name_to_handle_at(2)
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:17:58AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> As I've said earlier, independent of the new handle type returning the
> new mount id is useful and needed because it allows the caller to
> reliably generate a mount fd for use with open_by_handle_at() via
> statmount(). That won't be solved by a new handle type and is racy with
> the old mount id. So I intend to accept a version of this patch.
The whole point is that with the fsid in the handle we do not even need
a mount fd for open_by_handle_at.
If you insist on making this interface even more crappy than it is and
create confusion please record my explicit:
Nacked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
in the commit :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists