On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:07 PM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh well. >> 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? Sure. > > #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. Indeed. Also, shouldn't these include the propagation flags? Thanks, Miklos
