[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ybae7fgr2cszhu2g2gx6v2pgmovajsue5atvxha4dhpe7alco7@vq3jdgy2ksmu>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:23:42 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lujialin4@...wei.com, chenridong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] cgroup: Use descriptor table to unify mount flag
management
On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 09:53:11PM +0800, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> What do you think about this approach? If you have any suggestions for further improvement, I'd be
> happy to incorporate them.
Yes, it's better due to the single place of definition.
It made me to look around at some other filesystems from a random sample
(skewed towards ones with more options) and I see:
- many of them simply use the big switch/case in .parse_param,
- ext4 has its specialized ext4_mount_opts array whose order needn't
match ext4_param_specs thanks to dynamic search.
All in all, I appreciate your effort, however, I'm not sure it's worth
to deviate from the custom of other FS implementations.
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists