Miklos Szeredi <mszer...@redhat.com> wrote: > The old name strongly implies that a new superblock will be created from > the fs_context. This is not true: filesystems are free to retuse an > existing superblock and return that (for good reason).
Kind of like open(O_CREAT) only ever creates files, right;-) Actually, FSCONFIG_CMD_OPEN might be a better name. David
