On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:13 AM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If you still prefer to have cloexec flags > > for the 4 new syscalls then yes, > > if they could at least all have the same name > > (FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC?) that would be good. > > They don't all have the same value (see OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC). > > Note that I also don't want to blindly #define them to O_CLOEXEC because it's > not necessarily the same value on all arches. Currently it can be 02000000, > 010000000 or 0x400000 for instance, which means that if it's sharing a mask > with other flags, at least three bits have to be reserved for it or we have to > have arch-dependent bit juggling. > > One thing I like about your approach of just making them O_CLOEXEC by default > and removing the constants is that it avoids this mess entirely. +1. Confusion caused by inconsistency of naming is going to hurt more than inconsistency of semantics wrt. open(2). Thanks, Miklos
