On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > fsopen = create fsfd > fsmount = fsfd -> mountfd & set attr on mountfd & attach mountfd > fspick = path -> fsfd > move_mount = attach mountfd or move existing > fsinfo = info from path > open_tree = new mountfd from path or clone > mount_setattr = set attr on mountfd > > Notice that fsmount() encompasses mount_setattr() + move_mount() > functionality. Split those out and leave fsmount() to actually do > the "fsfd ->mountfd" translation? Might make sense. > fsinfo() name suggests it's in the same class as > fsopen/fsmount/fspick, operating on fsfd object, but's it's not and I > think that's slightly confusing. > > Rename move_mount() -> mount_move()? mount_move_bikeshed_bikeshed_bikeshed(), surely? > Also does it make sense to make the cloning behavior of open_tree() > optional? Without cloning it's just a plain open(O_PATH). That way > it could be renamed mount_clone(). Umm... I'm not sure about that one. If nothing else, OPEN_TREE_DETACH might be a good idea, in which case cloning is not the primary effect; hell knows.
