From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751736AbdEHIfx (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2017 04:35:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55988 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750836AbdEHIfw (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2017 04:35:52 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 4420C3DBF1 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dhowells@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 4420C3DBF1 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <22958.1493999242@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <22958.1493999242@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149382747487.30481.15428192741961545429.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro , linux-fsdevel , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] VFS: Introduce mount context MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31870.1494232549.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 09:35:49 +0100 Message-ID: <31871.1494232549@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Mon, 08 May 2017 08:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > > This patchset achieves this partly, but the separation is far from > > crisp clear... First of all why is fsopen() creating a "mount > > context"? It's suppsed to create a "superblock creation context". > > I've no particular objection to renaming struct mount_context to something > else, but it also needs to handle remount because of the commonality. > > Further, once you've created a superblock, what are you going to do with it > other than mount it? I suppose you could statfs it and we could add other > superblock manipulation functions, but this is normally done by opening the > device directly (at least for bdev-based superblocks). How about sb_context, sb_config, sb_parameters or something like that? David