From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 18 8:53:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from sneakerz.org (sneakerz.org [216.33.66.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8569337B405 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by sneakerz.org (Postfix, from userid 1023) id EAE405D006; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:53:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:53:35 -0600 From: Maxime Henrion To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Alexander Kabaev Subject: Re: Proposal for a new mount API Message-ID: <20020118105335.A50775@sneakerz.org> References: <20020118112224.236b4754.ak03@gte.com> <12159.1011371137@critter.freebsd.dk> <20020118114124.61c39faf.ak03@gte.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20020118114124.61c39faf.ak03@gte.com>; from ak03@gte.com on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:41:24AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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