[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZwUcT0qUp2DKOCS3@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 04:49:35 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Allison Karlitskaya <allison.karlitskaya@...hat.com>,
Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs/super.c: introduce get_tree_bdev_by_dev()
On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 05:56:05PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> As Allison reported [1], currently get_tree_bdev() will store
> "Can't lookup blockdev" error message. Although it makes sense for
> pure bdev-based fses, this message may mislead users who try to use
> EROFS file-backed mounts since get_tree_nodev() is used as a fallback
> then.
>
> Add get_tree_bdev_by_dev() to specify a device number explicitly
> instead of the hardcoded fc->source as mentioned in [2], there are
> other benefits like:
> - Filesystems can have other ways to get a bdev-based sb
> in addition to the current hard-coded source path;
>
> - Pseudo-filesystems can utilize this method to generate a
> filesystem from given device numbers too.
>
> - Like get_tree_nodev(), it doesn't strictly tie to fc->source
> either.
Do you have concrete plans for any of those? If so send pointers.
Otherwise just passing a quiet flag of some form feels like a much
saner interface.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists