On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:18:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I'm bothered by the fact that we use the same MS_ prefix in the old mount(2) api > and the new fsmount(2) api. What happens if we introduce new flags for > fsmount(2) and are already out of flags for mount(2)? I see a big mess that > way. > > Also notice, how the old code just totally ignored MS_RELATIME? Bit of rot in > the new interface already. > > So here's a patch. The MNT_ prefix is already used by libmount, and we don't > want any confusion arising from that. So how about M_*? Short and sweet, just > like O_* for open(2). +1 Please. -- Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> http://karelzak.blogspot.com
