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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17547.1537542706@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20180920151214.15484-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20180920151214.15484-7-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <17547.1537542706@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:23:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegueVku24snfr+RwdsdzLc_s5VrS1=TPhTJp6Tw1ZPf=PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fsconfig: rename FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE to FSCONFIG_CMD_OBTAIN
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

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