Hi Yue,
On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
> From: Yue Hu <[email protected]>
>
> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> index df40654..06024ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct
> xattr_handler *handler,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
> -#endif
Thanks for your patch.
In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata
section?
I am not sure...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
>
