* Historical reason for NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK?
@ 2025-03-12 15:23 Benjamin Coddington
2025-03-12 20:15 ` Benjamin Coddington
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Coddington @ 2025-03-12 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux NFS Mailing List
I'm looking for some bits in the nfs_mount_data.flags, and wondering why we
have only 16 bits masked off due to:
#define NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK 0xFFFF
Does anyone recall why we've limited the ABI to 16 bits here?
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Historical reason for NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK?
2025-03-12 15:23 Historical reason for NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK? Benjamin Coddington
@ 2025-03-12 20:15 ` Benjamin Coddington
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Coddington @ 2025-03-12 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux NFS Mailing List
On 12 Mar 2025, at 11:23, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> I'm looking for some bits in the nfs_mount_data.flags, and wondering why we
> have only 16 bits masked off due to:
>
> #define NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK 0xFFFF
>
> Does anyone recall why we've limited the ABI to 16 bits here?
Scott's pointed out that its probably something to do with the legacy binary
interface ABI and how we just OR the flags into the nfs_server's internal
flags..
I wonder how long we have to support the binary interface.
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-03-12 20:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-03-12 15:23 Historical reason for NFS_MOUNT_FLAGMASK? Benjamin Coddington
2025-03-12 20:15 ` Benjamin Coddington
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox