Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180920151214.15484-7-mszeredi@redhat.com>
References: <20180920151214.15484-7-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20180920151214.15484-1-mszeredi@redhat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fsconfig: rename FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE to FSCONFIG_CMD_OBTAIN
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17546.1537542706.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:11:46 +0100
Message-ID: <17547.1537542706@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@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.

David