[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025-08-12.1755009210-quick-best-oranges-coats-BNJpCV@cyphar.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:36:53 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>,
"Michael T. Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@...il.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/12] man/man2/move_mount.2: document "new" mount API
On 2025-08-12, Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com> wrote:
> move_mount for v2 contained this:
> > Mounts cannot be moved beneath the rootfs
>
> In v3 you changed this to this:
> > Mount objects cannot be attached beneath the filesystem root
>
> You made this phrase worse.
>
> "Filesystem root" can be understood as "root of superblock".
> So, please, change this to "root directory" or something.
Maybe I should borrow the "root mount" terminology from pivot_root(2)?
(Though they use "root mount in the mount namespace of the calling
process", which is a little wordy.) I didn't like using "rootfs" as
shorthand in a man-page.
> > This would create a new bind-mount of /home/cyphar as attached mount object, and then attach
> You meant "as detached mount object"
Thanks, I have already fixed this in my branch (and the two other
misuses of "attach" in fsopen(2)). FWIW, open_tree(2) was the first
man-page in this series that I wrote, so I hadn't settled on the wording
the first draft.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists