[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB2E098.7030202@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:41:44 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] sysfs: Basic support for multiple super blocks
Hello, Eric.
On 03/31/2010 03:31 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> Add all of the necessary bioler plate to support
boiler :-)
> +static int sysfs_test_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data)
> +{
> + struct sysfs_super_info *sb_info = sysfs_info(sb);
> + struct sysfs_super_info *info = data;
> + int found = 1;
> + return found;
> +}
Can you please make it return bool?
> static int sysfs_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
> int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
> {
> - return get_sb_single(fs_type, flags, data, sysfs_fill_super, mnt);
> + struct sysfs_super_info *info;
> + struct super_block *sb;
> + int error;
> +
> + error = -ENOMEM;
> + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!info)
> + goto out;
> + sb = sget(fs_type, sysfs_test_super, sysfs_set_super, info);
> + if (IS_ERR(sb) || sb->s_fs_info != info)
> + kfree(info);
> + if (IS_ERR(sb)) {
> + kfree(info);
> + error = PTR_ERR(sb);
> + goto out;
> + }
> + if (!sb->s_root) {
> + sb->s_flags = flags;
> + error = sysfs_fill_super(sb, data, flags & MS_SILENT ? 1 : 0);
> + if (error) {
> + deactivate_locked_super(sb);
> + goto out;
> + }
> + sb->s_flags |= MS_ACTIVE;
> + }
> +
> + simple_set_mnt(mnt, sb);
> + error = 0;
> +out:
> + return error;
> +}
I haven't looked at later patches but I suppose this is gonna be
filled with more meaningful stuff later. One (possibly silly) thing
that stands out compared to get_sb_single() is missing remount
handling. Is it intended?
> index 30f5a44..030a39d 100644
> --- a/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> +++ b/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ struct sysfs_addrm_cxt {
> /*
> * mount.c
> */
> +struct sysfs_super_info {
> +};
> +#define sysfs_info(SB) ((struct sysfs_super_info *)(SB->s_fs_info))
Another nit picking. It would be better to wrap SB in the macro
definition. Also, wouldn't an inline function be better?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists