On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, yargil@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Selon Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Yargil wrote:
> >
> > > Regression from commit dd68314ccf3fb918c1fb6471817edbc60ece4b52
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > the commit you've mentioned does not have anything to do with procfs.
> > Maybe you meant commit
> >
> > c9de560ded61faa5b754137b7753da252391c55a
> > ext4: Add multi block allocator for ext4
> >
> > which adds multi block allocator for ext4 (mballoc.c) and has been added
> > in Jan 29 2008.
> >
> > > ---
> > > fs/ext4/super.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > index 44d0c8d..8e7298d 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > @@ -53,7 +53,9 @@
> > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > > #include <trace/events/ext4.h>
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > > static struct proc_dir_entry *ext4_proc_root;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > This is not needed I think, since proc_dir_entry is defined in
> > linux/proc_fs.h even if CONFIG_PROC_FS is not defined.
> >
> > > static struct kset *ext4_kset;
> > > static struct ext4_lazy_init *ext4_li_info;
> > > static struct mutex ext4_li_mtx;
> > > @@ -812,9 +814,11 @@ static void ext4_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > > es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
> > > ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);
> > > }
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > > if (sbi->s_proc) {
> > > remove_proc_entry(sb->s_id, ext4_proc_root);
> >
> > This function exists even if CONFIG_PROC_FS is not defined.
> >
> > #define remove_proc_entry(name, parent) do {} while (0)
> >
> >
> > > }
> > > +#endif
> > > kobject_del(&sbi->s_kobj);
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < sbi->s_gdb_count; i++)
> > > @@ -4984,9 +4988,11 @@ static int __init ext4_init_fs(void)
> > > ext4_kset = kset_create_and_add("ext4", NULL, fs_kobj);
> > > if (!ext4_kset)
> > > goto out6;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > > ext4_proc_root = proc_mkdir("fs/ext4", NULL);
> >
> > The same here
> >
> > static inline struct proc_dir_entry *proc_mkdir(const char *name,
> > struct proc_dir_entry *parent) {return NULL;}
> >
> >
> > > if (!ext4_proc_root)
> > > goto out5;
> > However this is wrong, because in case that procfs is not compiled in
> > ext4_proc_root will be NULL, but there is no reason to error out in this
> > case.
> >
> > The question is whether we should error out in case that it fails even
> > if we have procfs compiled in. I am slightly in favour of just printing
> > a warning in !CONFIG_PROC_FS case.
> >
> > Also this is probably why you blame commit
> > dd68314ccf3fb918c1fb6471817edbc60ece4b52 for the regression, since this
> > check was added with this commit. But I think that there is no reasong
> > to #ifdef everything procfs related.
>
> I did that to avoid warning. But if printing warning is not a problem then the
> only part of code to be #ifdef is the test of the return value of proc_mkdir in
> the ext4_init_fs function.
Exactly, it has the advantage of not spawning #ifdefs in super.c and the
advantage of not preventing the mount in case that the proc_mkdir() fails
for some reason, because we actually do not need that for file system to
work properly.
Thanks!
-Lukas
>
> >
> >
> > > +#endif
> > >
> > > err = ext4_init_feat_adverts();
> > > if (err)
> > > @@ -5022,8 +5028,10 @@ out2:
> > > out3:
> > > ext4_exit_feat_adverts();
> > > out4:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > > remove_proc_entry("fs/ext4", NULL);
> >
> > same here.
> >
> > > out5:
> > > +#endif
> > > kset_unregister(ext4_kset);
> > > out6:
> > > ext4_exit_system_zone();
> > >
> >
> > -Lukas
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
