lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 19/41] union-mount: Introduce MNT_UNION and MS_UNION flags
In message <1256152779-10054-20-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com>, Valerie Aurora writes:
> From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
>
> Add per mountpoint flag for Union Mount support. You need additional patches
> to util-linux for that to work - see:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/util-linux-ng/val/util-linux-ng.git
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/namespace.c | 5 ++++-
> include/linux/fs.h | 1 +
> include/linux/mount.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
[...]

> diff --git a/include/linux/mount.h b/include/linux/mount.h
> index 5d52753..e175c47 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mount.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mount.h
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct mnt_namespace;
> #define MNT_SHARED 0x1000 /* if the vfsmount is a shared mount */
> #define MNT_UNBINDABLE 0x2000 /* if the vfsmount is a unbindable mount */
> #define MNT_PNODE_MASK 0x3000 /* propagation flag mask */
> +#define MNT_UNION 0x4000 /* if the vfsmount is a union mount */

I it correct to just add another flag here? How does it relate to this
'propagation mask' right above it? If there's some code out there which
masks out which MNT flags get propagated and which don't, then you need to
make a decision whether MNT_UNION needs to be propagated as well. Either
way, please document your decision in a comment here so no one will have to
ask the same question again.

Erez.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-30 09:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans