Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > So let's instead start a clean new set, to be used in the new API. If we must. But let's not call them just M_* please. Let's call them MOUNT_ATTR_* or something. > The MS_RELATIME flag was accepted but ignored. Simply leave this out of > the new set, since "relatime" is the default. Can we make RELATIME, STRICTATIME and NOATIME an enum rather than individual flags? #define MOUNT_ATTR_RDONLY 0x01 #define MOUNT_ATTR_NOSUID 0x02 #define MOUNT_ATTR_NODEV 0x04 #define MOUNT_ATTR_NOEXEC 0x08 #define MOUNT_ATTR_RELATIME 0x00 #define MOUNT_ATTR_NOATIME 0x10 #define MOUNT_ATTR_STRICTATIME 0x20 #define MOUNT_ATTR_ATIME_MASK 0x30 #define MOUNT_ATTR_NODIRATIME 0x40 We can also use these for a mount_setattr() syscall: mount_setattr(int dfd, const char *path, unsigned int atflags, unsigned int attr_values, unsigned int attr_mask); where atflags can potentially include AT_RECURSIVE. David
