On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 23:18 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> I understand perfectly that this is what you want to do. And I'm
> saying that the following code snippet should do exactly the same,
> without having to add a new syscall:
>
> char tmpbuf[64];
> sprintf(tmpbuf, "/proc/self/
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
> > of things with totally different meanings.
> >
> > Does this solve all the issues?
>
> We should add a size parameter either in the mou
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > > > suggested.
> > >
> > > If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> > > solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignori
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > > suggested.
> >
> > If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> > solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
> >
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
> of things with totally different meanings.
>
> Does this solve all the issues?
We should add a size parameter either in the mount_params or as
> > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > suggested.
>
> If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
> automounter issue is just going to force us to redo the syscall in a
>
> > Maybe instead of messing with masks, it's better to introduce a
> > get_flags() or a more general mount_stat() operation, and let
> > userspace deal with setting and clearing flags, just as we do for
> > stat/chmod?
> >
> > So we'd have
> >
> > mount_stat(path, stat);
> > mount_bind(fr
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 17:03 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> suggested.
If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
automounter issue is ju
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "flags" argument could be the same as for regular mount, and
> > contain the mnt_flags - so the extra argument could maybe usefully be
> > a "mnt_flags_mask", to indicate which flags we actually care about
> > ov
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
> > > inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
> > > inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
> >
>
[ cc: linux-fsdevel ]
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
> > is a descriptive name for this flag.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
> is a descriptive name for this flag. MS_EXPLICIT_FLAGS might be better
> but still isn't optimal.
>
MS_BIND_FLAGS_OVERRIDE ?
Paul
--
To unsu
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
> > inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
> > inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
>
> This is r
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 09:30 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> And this is where we usually conclude, that a new userspace mount API
> is long overdue. So for starters, how about a new syscall for bind
> mounts:
>
> int mount_bind(const char *src, const char *dst, unsigned flags,
>u
Please always CC linux-fsdevel on VFS patches!
> From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
>
> MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
> from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
> mountpoint.
This i
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:45:15PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
>
> MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
> from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
> mountpoi
From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
mountpoint.
This flag allows you to create a bind mount with the desired per-mo
17 matches
Mail list logo
