On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 03:02:44AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <1256152779-10054-20-git-send-email-vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx>, Valerie Aurora writes: > > From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx> > > > > Add per mountpoint flag for Union Mount support. You need additional patches > > to util-linux for that to work - see: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/util-linux-ng/val/util-linux-ng.git > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/namespace.c | 5 ++++- > > include/linux/fs.h | 1 + > > include/linux/mount.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > [...] > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mount.h b/include/linux/mount.h > > index 5d52753..e175c47 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/mount.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mount.h > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct mnt_namespace; > > #define MNT_SHARED 0x1000 /* if the vfsmount is a shared mount */ > > #define MNT_UNBINDABLE 0x2000 /* if the vfsmount is a unbindable mount */ > > #define MNT_PNODE_MASK 0x3000 /* propagation flag mask */ > > +#define MNT_UNION 0x4000 /* if the vfsmount is a union mount */ > > I it correct to just add another flag here? How does it relate to this > 'propagation mask' right above it? If there's some code out there which > masks out which MNT flags get propagated and which don't, then you need to > make a decision whether MNT_UNION needs to be propagated as well. Either > way, please document your decision in a comment here so no one will have to > ask the same question again. I sat down and puzzled this out and sent a separate patch to clean up and comment this part of the code. -VAL -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
