On Sep 14, 2005, at 3:49 AM, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:

> But these are all different than mounting a file system, thus IMHO,
> mount(2) is the wrong place to handle them.  I really find the current
> approach of flags to change behavior weird.  (Specially having to
> execute completely different operations inside the vfs_mount hook,
> where one could use independent and smaller hooks.)

I'm ambivalent on the MNT_UPDATE thing, really.  MNT_UPDATE does have  
"replace all previous mount options with these new ones" semantics,  
so it seems sort of "natural" to leave it where it is... but I don't  
really have a strong feeling either way.

> I'm interested in what you think about adding these features in
> fcntl(2).  (Note that the current implementation of fcntl(2) seems to
> have been designed leaving room for file system specific operations,
> which is what we want.)  Any comments?

I don't think it should be in fcntl(2).  fcntl(2) operates on  
individual files / directories.  fsctl(2) operates on the file system  
instance.

> That indeed sounds nice... but it's a bigger project than what I  
> intended
> at first (clean up existing stuff).  Maybe we can leave this for a  
> later
> step?

Why change it twice?  It seems like it's actually less work to do the  
heavy-lifting-in-mountd scheme, because it doesn't require you to  
implement fsctl(2).

-- thorpej