Re: [PATCH 21/32] VFS: Implement fsmount() to effect a pre-configured mount [ver #8]

[David Howells]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The prototype in the header doesn't match the one in the implementation,
> which should cause a compile-time error, at least if syscalls.h is included
> in namespace.c

I've fixed that sort of thing up from kbuild warnings.

> Do you have a particular use case in mind for the spare_4/spare_5 arguments?
> If not, we can probably skip them. If we end up needing them after all, we
> can always add a new syscall entry point, or use one of the flag bits to
> decide whether the additional arguments are valid or not.

Whilst that is true, these aren't really (or probably shouldn't be) hot path
syscalls, so I would contend that just clearing the extra arguments shouldn't
be much of a performance loss.  On the other hand, syscall numbers are to some
extent precious.  If we hit ~512 syscalls we start to have an issue as we
start to get overlaps.

And, yes, I do have ideas for them involving ID mapping on mounts (ie. killing
off shiftfs).

> >  COND_SYSCALL(sys_fsopen);
> > +COND_SYSCALL(sys_fsmount);
> 
> This should only be needed if the syscall is optional, which it doesn't
> seem to be (same for the other ones here).

Al removed them.

David