[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F2F43EB045D266E8+20250117085244.326177-1-chenlinxuan@uniontech.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:52:43 +0800
From: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>
To: Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>,
Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
Cc: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] erofs: add error log in erofs_fc_parse_param
While reading erofs code, I notice that `erofs_fc_parse_param` will
return -ENOPARAM, which means that erofs do not support this option,
without report anything when `fs_parse` return an unknown `opt`.
But if an option is unknown to erofs, I mean that option not in
`erofs_fs_parameters` at all, `fs_parse` will return -ENOPARAM,
which means that `erofs_fs_parameters` should has returned earlier.
Entering `default` means `fs_parse` return something we unexpected.
I am not sure about it but I think we should return -EINVAL here,
just like `xfs_fs_parse_param`.
Signed-off-by: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>
---
fs/erofs/super.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
index 1fc5623c3a4d..67fc4c1deb98 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
@@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static int erofs_fc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc,
#endif
break;
default:
- return -ENOPARAM;
+ errorfc(fc, "%s option not supported", param->key);
+ return -EINVAL;
}
return 0;
}
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists