From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:40848 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389155AbeG0XaO (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:30:14 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <153271267980.9458.7640156373438016898.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <153271288242.9458.18050138471208178879.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/38] vfs: syscall: Add fsmount() to create a mount for a superblock [ver #10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8834.1532729179.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:06:19 +0100 Message-ID: <8835.1532729179@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I have a potentially silly objection. For the old timers, "mount" means to > stick a reel of tape or some similar object onto a reader, which seems to > imply that "mount" means to start up the filesystem. For younguns, this > meaning is probably lost, and the more obvious meaning is to "mount" it into > some location in the VFS hierarchy a la vfsmount. The patch description > doesn't disambiguate it, and obviously people used to mount(2)/mount(8) are > just likely to be confused. The problem is that inside the kernel it *is* a "mount". How about I change the first paragraph to: Provide a system call by which a filesystem opened with fsopen() and configured by a series of fsconfig() calls can have a detached mount object created for it. This mount object can then be attached to the VFS mount hierarchy using move_mount() by passing the returned file descriptor as the from directory fd. > At the very least, your description should make it absolutely clear what you > mean. Even better IMO would be to drop the use of the word "mount" entirely I'm not sure that's a reasonable idea, given the "mounting" is how this is done. Can you suggest a word that encapsulates what it is that fsmount() returns? It's almost, but not quite identical with what open(O_PATH) returns, since it has to be torn down if not actually mounted somewhere when the fd is closed. > and maybe rename the syscall. > > From a very brief reading, I think you are giving it the meaning that would > be implied by fsstart(2). Do you have a reference for the manpage for that? Google doesn't seem to find it. David