On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote: > Miklos Szeredi <mszer...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The old name strongly implies that a new superblock will be created from >> the fs_context. This is not true: filesystems are free to retuse an >> existing superblock and return that (for good reason). > > Kind of like open(O_CREAT) only ever creates files, right;-) > > Actually, FSCONFIG_CMD_OPEN might be a better name.
We've already opened the context with fsopen() and about to open a file referring to a subtree with fsmount(). And this one doesn't actually involve opening any files, so IMO it should not be called _OPEN. Thanks, Miklos
