Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:53:35 -0600
From:      Maxime Henrion <mux@sneakerz.org>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Cc:        Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>
Subject:   Re: Proposal for a new mount API
Message-ID:  <20020118105335.A50775@sneakerz.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020118114124.61c39faf.ak03@gte.com>; from ak03@gte.com on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:41:24AM -0500
References:  <20020118112224.236b4754.ak03@gte.com> <12159.1011371137@critter.freebsd.dk> <20020118114124.61c39faf.ak03@gte.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > I belive what you see is the backwards compatibility stuff.
> How is that? The vfs_nmount sycall accepts flags as its first parameter
> and then proceeds testing it for flags various MNT_??? bits almost
> exactly as the existing mount sysccall is doing today. What is the point
> in backwards compatibility for these functions anyway? The new mount was
> supposed to become a new syscall, if I am not mistaken.

I didn't feel like it was worth getting rid of this flags parameter,
mainly for things like MNT_RDONLY or MNT_NOEXEC which apply to all
filesystems.  Converting all these flags to mount options will be a
pain, and an unnecessary one, IMO.  However, it's true that there
are some MNT_* flags that don't belong here at all (like the MNT_EX*
stuff) and those will be converted to mount options once we came to an
agreement concerning the API.

Maxime

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020118105335.A50775>