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: <CAJfpegtw9pYrWv3zcWMJ6SMADcQ-JsSsE4UW3sEb1QM89U+WJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJfpegtw9pYrWv3zcWMJ6SMADcQ-JsSsE4UW3sEb1QM89U+WJg@mail.gmail.com> <20180920151214.15484-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20180920151214.15484-6-mszeredi@redhat.com> <17157.1537542475@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] fsmount: do not use legacy MS_ flags
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8491.1537544247.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:37:27 +0100
Message-ID: <8492.1537544247@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:

> Indeed.  Also, shouldn't these include the propagation flags?

I guess so, though I'd be tempted to put those in a separate set.  Also, I'm
not sure whether fsmount() should deal with prop flags or whether that should
be something move_mount() needs to deal with (ie. does propagation need
applying at the time of splicing, depending on the parent).

David