To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eugene@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
       7eggert@web.de
In-reply-to: <20100211172100.GA28533@infradead.org> (message from Christoph
	Hellwig on Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:21:00 -0500)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: add NOFOLLOW flag to umount(2)
References: <E1NfAXx-0000ln-59@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu> <20100211172100.GA28533@infradead.org>
Message-Id: <E1NfdQh-0003lW-ED@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:06:19 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 902
Lines: 23

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >  - renamed flag to UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW
> >  - added UMOUNT_UNUSED for feature detection
> 
> Umm, why?  MNT_ certainly isn't the best naming for unmount flags,
> but switching convention after we had a few doesn't make any sense.

It's not just bad naming, having another set of unrelated flags with
the same prefix *and* in close proximity to each other is asking for
trouble.

We could rename all the umount flags, and leave userspace do #defines
for backward compat.  It's not as if this was some widely used or
portable API.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/