Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55988 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750836AbdEHIfw (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2017 04:35:52 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <22958.1493999242@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <22958.1493999242@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149382747487.30481.15428192741961545429.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro , linux-fsdevel , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] VFS: Introduce mount context MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 09:35:49 +0100 Message-ID: <31871.1494232549@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Howells wrote: > > This patchset achieves this partly, but the separation is far from > > crisp clear... First of all why is fsopen() creating a "mount > > context"? It's suppsed to create a "superblock creation context". > > I've no particular objection to renaming struct mount_context to something > else, but it also needs to handle remount because of the commonality. > > Further, once you've created a superblock, what are you going to do with it > other than mount it? I suppose you could statfs it and we could add other > superblock manipulation functions, but this is normally done by opening the > device directly (at least for bdev-based superblocks). How about sb_context, sb_config, sb_parameters or something like that? David