> On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t;
>>
>> #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC 0x00000001
>>
>> +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC 0x00000001
>> +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW 0x00000002
>> +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT 0x00000004
>> +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH 0x00000008
>
> This caught my eye: why aren't we using the AT_ constants? Adding an
> AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup
> related flags for FSPICK...
For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC? A caller can
safely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.
