[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98585dd8-d0b6-4000-b46d-a08c64eae44d@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:11:14 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
Cc: Sheng Yong <shengyong2021@...il.com>, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
zbestahu@...il.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com, dhavale@...gle.com,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>, Wang Shuai <wangshuai12@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] erofs: add 'offset' mount option for file-backed &
bdev-based mounts
On 2025/4/8 16:46, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:49:31PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> On 2025/4/7 19:40, Karel Zak wrote:
>>> We can improve it in libmount and add any if-erofs hack there, but my
>>> suggestion is to select a better name for the mount option. For
>>> example, erofsoff=, erostart=, fsoffset=, start=, or similar.
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion!
>>
>> it's somewhat weird to use erofsprefix here, I think fsoffset
>> may be fine.
>
> Yes, fsoffset sounds good. I anticipate more filesystems will support
> file-backed mounts in the future, making this option reusable.
From my own kernel perspective, it's not possible for the majority
of read-write fses especially have nested transaction (like
`current->journal_info`) in addition to many deadlock factors
without extra workqueue contexts. But for erofs it's safe.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists