[PATCH RESEND] fs/namespace: describe @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount()

Suchit Karunakaran posted 1 patch 3 weeks, 2 days ago
fs/namespace.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
[PATCH RESEND] fs/namespace: describe @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount()
Posted by Suchit Karunakaran 3 weeks, 2 days ago
Add a description for the @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount() to suppress
a compiler warning. No functional changes

Signed-off-by: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@gmail.com>
---
 fs/namespace.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
index 0a5fec7065d7..52394a2ebaf3 100644
--- a/fs/namespace.c
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -2738,6 +2738,9 @@ static int attach_recursive_mnt(struct mount *source_mnt,
 /**
  * do_lock_mount - lock mount and mountpoint
  * @path:    target path
+ * @pinned:  holds a reference to the mountpoint pinned during the
+ *           mount operation to prevent it from being unmounted or
+ *           moved concurrently
  * @beneath: whether the intention is to mount beneath @path
  *
  * Follow the mount stack on @path until the top mount @mnt is found. If
-- 
2.50.1
Re: [PATCH RESEND] fs/namespace: describe @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount()
Posted by Al Viro 3 weeks, 2 days ago
On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 10:27:44PM +0530, Suchit Karunakaran wrote:
> Add a description for the @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount() to suppress
> a compiler warning. No functional changes

This is the least of problems with that comment, really - or calling
conventions it tries to describe.

Check linux-next, it's rewritten there.
Re: [PATCH RESEND] fs/namespace: describe @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount()
Posted by Suchit Karunakaran 3 weeks, 2 days ago
On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 22:38, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 10:27:44PM +0530, Suchit Karunakaran wrote:
> > Add a description for the @pinned parameter in do_lock_mount() to suppress
> > a compiler warning. No functional changes
>
> This is the least of problems with that comment, really - or calling
> conventions it tries to describe.
>
> Check linux-next, it's rewritten there.

Thanks for pointing it out. I was unaware of the changes in the latest
version of linux-next.