On Tue, 30 May 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Yes, MNT_NOT_IF_ROOT makes sense. However, I'ld rather postpone that one
> > until the decision on mount(2) interface (or the interface of whatever new
> > syscall(s) will be used). I mean, just look at mount(8) syntax:
>
> NOT_IF_ROOT ??? what we care about is remounts not root/no root
? IIRC the main complain was about non-idempotent mount, no?
> > filesystem. The latter is fs-dependent and opaque both for mount(8) and
> > sys_mount(). To add more fun, we'll need some syntax for loopbacks and
>
> Some of the MNT flags are not fs dependant - eg MS_RDONLY
MNT flags are fs-independent, it's the rest that is a PITA. OK, let me put
it that way: are you agree that mount(2) interface is ugly like hell? Yes,
we must keep the syscall around, but I'ld really prefer to get something
more sensible and at least make mount(8) use _it_.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST