Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not against merging this patchset (have nits about resuing the > MS_* constants for the new API that I've complained about, but that's > really easy to fix before -final), Can you send me a patch that does what you want here? They're only used by fsmount() for creating a vfsmount and not used for the superblock creation or reconfiguration. > but it may make sense to differentiate the legacy behavior from a saner one > from the very start. I.e. rename FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE I would suggest leaving it as-is and add an FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE_EXCLUSIVE. > to something implying it's actually *not* a create in exclusive sense that > one would first imply (and yeah, we have creat() and O_CREAT, which don't > imply exclusivity, yet they at least have clear semantics that current super > block creation does definitely not). The problem is that "exclusivity" isn't necessarily an easy thing to define. Take nfs4 and btrfs for example. They creating a backing superblock that the actual node is derived from (though in different ways). How do you define what "exclusive" means in their case? David
