Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a potentially silly objection. For the old timers, "mount" means to > stick a reel of tape or some similar object onto a reader, which seems to > imply that "mount" means to start up the filesystem. For younguns, this > meaning is probably lost, and the more obvious meaning is to "mount" it into > some location in the VFS hierarchy a la vfsmount. The patch description > doesn't disambiguate it, and obviously people used to mount(2)/mount(8) are > just likely to be confused. The problem is that inside the kernel it *is* a "mount". How about I change the first paragraph to: Provide a system call by which a filesystem opened with fsopen() and configured by a series of fsconfig() calls can have a detached mount object created for it. This mount object can then be attached to the VFS mount hierarchy using move_mount() by passing the returned file descriptor as the from directory fd. > At the very least, your description should make it absolutely clear what you > mean. Even better IMO would be to drop the use of the word "mount" entirely I'm not sure that's a reasonable idea, given the "mounting" is how this is done. Can you suggest a word that encapsulates what it is that fsmount() returns? It's almost, but not quite identical with what open(O_PATH) returns, since it has to be torn down if not actually mounted somewhere when the fd is closed. > and maybe rename the syscall. > > From a very brief reading, I think you are giving it the meaning that would > be implied by fsstart(2). Do you have a reference for the manpage for that? Google doesn't seem to find it. David
