From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752514AbbJPXyL (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:54:11 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:42423 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201AbbJPXyI (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:54:08 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Hannes Frederic Sowa , davem@davemloft.net, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, tgraf@suug.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov References: <1445016105.1251655.412231129.6574D430@webmail.messagingengine.com> <5621371C.2000507@plumgrid.com> <56213A61.40509@iogearbox.net> <87d1welkp8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <56214FAC.5060704@plumgrid.com> <87y4f2io9l.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <5621649A.80403@plumgrid.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:44:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5621649A.80403@plumgrid.com> (Alexei Starovoitov's message of "Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:56:58 -0700") Message-ID: <87mvviidku.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+xPVnd3sRk1hfaRRpcSaoEOS9N8ds7p8M= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.201.231 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4994] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Alexei Starovoitov X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 864 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 5 (0.6%), b_tie_ro: 3.7 (0.4%), parse: 1.12 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 23 (2.7%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.75 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 8 (0.9%), tests_pri_-950: 1.91 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 1.59 (0.2%), tests_pri_-400: 23 (2.7%), check_bayes: 21 (2.5%), b_tokenize: 7 (0.9%), b_tok_get_all: 5 (0.6%), b_comp_prob: 2.6 (0.3%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.8 (0.3%), b_finish: 0.88 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 188 (21.8%), tests_pri_500: 606 (70.2%), poll_dns_idle: 592 (68.5%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf: add support for persistent maps/progs X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:00:52 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexei Starovoitov writes: > We can argue about api for 2nd, whether it's mount with fd=1234 string > or else, but for the first mount style doesn't make sense. Why does mount not make sense? It is exactly what you are looking for so why does it not make sense? Eric