Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([email protected]):
> > > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT? I claim no way will people keep those
> > > > straight. How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER?
> > >
> > > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"? What is allowed to the
> > I think so, yes. One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing
> > user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount."
> > > user? "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too
> > > long.
> > Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference.
> > Maybe despite the length we should still go with it...
> > > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up
> > > the semantics in the manpage anyway. Is "nosuid" descriptive? Not
> > > very much, but we got used to it.
> > nosuid is quite clear.
> Is it? Shouldn't these be "allowsuid", "noallowsuid", "allowexec",
> See, we mentally add the "allow" quite easily.
But they aren't accompanied by a flag meaning "don't allow any
non-nosuid mounts below this point". *That* is what causes the problem
> > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from
> > quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already
> > forgotten which was which.
> Well, to the user they are always in the form "user=123" and
> "usermnt", so they are not as easy to confuse.
It still makes the kernel code harder to read, but for the user yes that
> But I feel a bit stupid bickering about this, because it isn't so
> important. "allowuser" or "allowusermnt" are fine by me if you think
> they are substantially better than "usermnt".
Thanks, I really really do :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]