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>