Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > If MNT_USERMNT flag is not set in the target vfsmount, then > > > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT? I claim no way will people keep those > > straight. How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER? > > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"? What is allowed to the I think so, yes. One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount." > user? "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too > long. Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference. Maybe despite the length we should still go with it... > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up > the semantics in the manpage anyway. Is "nosuid" descriptive? Not > very much, but we got used to it. nosuid is quite clear. MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already forgotten which was which. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
