On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote: > 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.
CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused variable, so I think we can't remove it. Thanks, >> >> 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, >> > . >
