[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <649afa9b-5724-4b52-8b9b-9a82a3c1468b@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:28:13 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>, 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: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: add error log in erofs_fc_parse_param
Hi Linxuan,
On 2025/1/17 16:52, Chen Linxuan wrote:
> 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>
I think the default branch is actually deadcode here, see
erofs_fc_parse_param() -> fs_parse() -> fs_lookup_key() -> -ENOPARAM
then vfs_parse_fs_param() will show "Unknown parameter".
Maybe we could just kill `default:` branch...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
> ---
> 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;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists