From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:37777 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726511AbeHXS36 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:29:58 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id c6-v6so1202171pls.4 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/33] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #11] From: Andy Lutomirski In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:54:57 -0700 Cc: David Howells , Al Viro , Linux API , Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , LKML Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <153313703562.13253.5766498657900728120.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <153313724861.13253.3837522702693613670.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Miklos Szeredi Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells wrote:= >>=20 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h >> @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t; >>=20 >> #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 >>=20 >> +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 >> +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW 0x00000002 >> +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT 0x00000004 >> +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH 0x00000008 >=20 > 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... For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC? A caller can s= afely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.=