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;
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 17:22:59 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]
Message-ID: <20190516162259.GB17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <155800752418.4037.9567789434648701032.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <155800752418.4037.9567789434648701032.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:52:04PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> 
> Hi Linus, Al,
> 
> Here are some patches that make changes to the mount API UAPI and two of
> them really need applying, before -rc1 - if they're going to be applied at
> all.

I'm fine with 2--4, but I'm not convinced that cloexec-by-default crusade
makes any sense.  Could somebody give coherent arguments in favour of
abandoning the existing conventions?