On 3/12/25 21:29, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/11/25 10:10 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 3/4/25 01:12, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> From: Eric Sandeen <sand...@sandeen.net> >>> >>> The current options parsing function both parses options and validates >>> them - factor the validation out to reduce the size of the function and >>> make transition to the new mount API possible, because under the new mount >>> API, options are parsed one at a time, and cannot all be tested at the end >>> of the parsing function. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sand...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>> index 29b3aa1ee99c..7cfd5e4e806e 100644 >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static int parse_options(struct super_block *sb, char >>> *options, bool is_remount) >>> int ret; >>> >>> if (!options) >>> - goto default_check; >> >> Eric, do you know in which condition options can be NULL, mount w/o any >> specified options? >> >> If so, maybe we'd keep this in order to chech whether default options >> generated from default_options() is conflicted or not? What do you think? >> >> Thanks, > > Yes, that's I think that is correct - (!options) is true when no f2fs-specific > options are present for parsing. > > However, I think that we do still check default options with my patch in this > case, because both calls to parse_options() still call f2fs_default_check() > when parse_options() completes. > > Or am I misunderstanding your question? > > I added printks to check: > > # mount -o loop,ro f2fsfile.img mnt > [root@fedora-rawhide f2fs-test]# dmesg > [847946.326384] loop2: detected capacity change from 0 to 819200 > [847946.337625] parse_options: (!options) is true > [847946.337637] enter f2fs_default_check()
Oh, I missed that we will call f2fs_default_check() after default_options() anyway, so I guess it's fine here. Thanks for your confirmation. > > Thank you for reviewing this series. I think at least the first 2 or 3 patches > are suitable for merge now, if you agree. I am fairly certain that the rest of I've reviewed other patches, they look clean to me, Jaegeuk has merged them into dev-test branch, let's test them for a while. > them are proper steps towards mount API conversion as well, but as I have not > yet finished the work, I can't guarantee it yet. :) Thanks for the effect, and good to see progress on changing to use new mount API. :) Thanks, > > Thanks, > -Eric > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
