From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-f66.google.com ([209.85.161.66]:42996 "EHLO mail-yw1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726508AbeHXS0e (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:26:34 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f66.google.com with SMTP id n207-v6so3168191ywn.9 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <153313703562.13253.5766498657900728120.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <153313724861.13253.3837522702693613670.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <153313724861.13253.3837522702693613670.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:51:22 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/33] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #11] To: David Howells Cc: Al Viro , Linux API , Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells wrote: > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h > @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t; > > #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 > > +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 > +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW 0x00000002 > +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT 0x00000004 > +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH 0x00000008 This caught my eye: why aren't we using the AT_ constants? Adding an AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup related flags for FSPICK... Thanks, Miklos > + > /* > * The type of fsconfig() call made. > */ >