On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:22:48 +0800 Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. However, erofs_xattr_security_handler will not unused under CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition, right? Thx. > > 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, > >> > > . > >
