On 09/13/2018 10:15 AM, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2018/9/12 13:10, Chengguang Xu wrote:Define a dummpy function of erofs_build_fault_attr() when macro CONFIG_EROFS_FAULT_INJECTION is disabled, so that we don't have to check the macro in calling place. Based on above adjustment, do proper code cleanup for option parsing of fault_injection. Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/staging/erofs/super.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/super.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/super.c index 1aec509c805f..14dbb6517b8d 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/super.c +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/super.c @@ -144,18 +144,33 @@ char *erofs_fault_name[FAULT_MAX] = { [FAULT_KMALLOC] = "kmalloc", };-static void erofs_build_fault_attr(struct erofs_sb_info *sbi,- unsigned int rate) +static int erofs_build_fault_attr(struct erofs_sb_info *sbi, + substring_t *args) { struct erofs_fault_info *ffi = &sbi->fault_info; + int rate = 0; + + if (args->from && match_int(args, &rate)) + return -EINVAL;if (rate) {atomic_set(&ffi->inject_ops, 0); ffi->inject_rate = rate; ffi->inject_type = (1 << FAULT_MAX) - 1; + set_opt(sbi, FAULT_INJECTION); } else { memset(ffi, 0, sizeof(struct erofs_fault_info)); + clear_opt(sbi, FAULT_INJECTION);Hmmm, if user mounts/remounts image with -o fault_injection=0, user can not check such info in anywhere, as we skip showing this option due to lack of EROFS_MOUNT_FAULT_INJECTION bit. How about keeping this bit?
IIUC, the purpose of fault_injection=0 is for disabling fault injection function, so isn't it the same as default? Should we distinguish explicit setting value 0 and default value 0?
Thanks, Chengguang _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
