On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:29:00PM +0800, cgxu wrote: > On 5/26/20 5:49 PM, Gao Xiang wrote: > > Hi Chengguang, > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:03:43PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote: > > > Define erofs_listxattr and erofs_xattr_handlers to NULL when > > > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR is not enabled, then we can remove many > > > ugly ifdef macros in the code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > Only compile tested. > > > > > > fs/erofs/inode.c | 6 ------ > > > fs/erofs/namei.c | 2 -- > > > fs/erofs/super.c | 4 +--- > > > fs/erofs/xattr.h | 7 ++----- > > > 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/inode.c b/fs/erofs/inode.c > > > index 3350ab65d892..7dd4bbe9674f 100644 > > > --- a/fs/erofs/inode.c > > > +++ b/fs/erofs/inode.c > > > @@ -311,27 +311,21 @@ int erofs_getattr(const struct path *path, struct > > > kstat *stat, > > > const struct inode_operations erofs_generic_iops = { > > > .getattr = erofs_getattr, > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR > > > .listxattr = erofs_listxattr, > > > -#endif > > > > It seems equivalent. And it seems ext2 and f2fs behave in the same way... > > I posted similar patch for ext2 and Jack merged to > his tree the other day, though that series also > included a real bugfix. I also posted similar patch > to f2fs, so if erofs and f2fs merge these patches > then all three will behave in the same way, ;-) > > You may refer below link for the detail. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/[email protected]/
Thanks for your link... > > > > But I'm not sure whether we'd return 0 (if I didn't see fs/xattr.c by > > mistake) > > or -EOPNOTSUPP here... Some thoughts about this? > > > Anyway, I'm fine with that if return 0 is okay here, but I'd like to know > > your > > and Chao's thoughts about this... I will play with it later as well. > > Originally, we set erofs_listxattr to ->listxattr only > when the config macro CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR is enabled, > it means that erofs_listxattr() never returns -EOPNOTSUPP > in any case, so actually there is no logic change here, > right? Yeah, I agree there is no logic change, so I'm fine with the patch. But I'm little worry about if return 0 is actually wrong here... see the return value at: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/listxattr.2.html Thanks, Gao Xiang > > > Thanks, > cgxu >
