On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
fsopen = create fsfd
fsmount = fsfd -> mountfd & set attr on mountfd & attach mountfd
fspick = path -> fsfd
move_mount = attach mountfd or move existing
fsinfo = info from path
open_tree = new mountfd from path or clone
mount_setattr = set attr on mountfd
Notice that fsmount() encompasses mount_setattr() + move_mount()
functionality. Split those out and leave fsmount() to actually do
the "fsfd ->mountfd" translation?
Might make sense.
fsinfo() name suggests it's in the same class as
fsopen/fsmount/fspick, operating on fsfd object, but's it's not and I
think that's slightly confusing.
Rename move_mount() -> mount_move()?
mount_move_bikeshed_bikeshed_bikeshed(), surely?
Also does it make sense to make the cloning behavior of open_tree()
optional? Without cloning it's just a plain open(O_PATH). That way
it could be renamed mount_clone().
Umm... I'm not sure about that one. If nothing else, OPEN_TREE_DETACH
might be a good idea, in which case cloning is not the primary effect;
hell knows.