> > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT?  I claim no way will people keep those
> > > straight.  How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER?
> > 
> > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"?  What is allowed to the
> 
> I think so, yes.  One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing
> user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount."
> 
> > user?  "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too
> > long.
> 
> Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference.
> Maybe despite the length we should still go with it...
> 
> > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up
> > the semantics in the manpage anyway.  Is "nosuid" descriptive?  Not
> > very much, but we got used to it.
> 
> nosuid is quite clear.

Is it?  Shouldn't these be "allowsuid", "noallowsuid", "allowexec",
"noallowexec"?

See, we mentally add the "allow" quite easily.

> MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from
> quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already
> forgotten which was which.

Well, to the user they are always in the form "user=123" and
"usermnt", so they are not as easy to confuse.

But I feel a bit stupid bickering about this, because it isn't so
important.  "allowuser" or "allowusermnt" are fine by me if you think
they are substantially better than "usermnt".

Miklos
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers