On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:38:11PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/28/20 11:45 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > At the parsing phase of mount in the new mount api sb will not be
> > available so allow sb to be NULL in ext4_msg and use that in
> > handle_mount_opt().
> >
> > Also change return value to appropriate -EINVAL where needed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/super.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 2c6fea451d7d..2f7e49bfbf71 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static void ext4_unregister_li_request(struct super_block *sb);
> > static void ext4_clear_request_list(void);
> > static struct inode *ext4_get_journal_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> > unsigned int journal_inum);
> > -static int ext4_validate_options(struct super_block *sb);
> > +static int ext4_validate_options(struct fs_context *fc);
> >
> > /*
> > * Lock ordering
> > @@ -754,13 +754,14 @@ void __ext4_msg(struct super_block *sb,
> > struct va_format vaf;
> > va_list args;
> >
> > - if (!___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state), "EXT4-fs"))
> > + if (sb &&
> > + !___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state), "EXT4-fs"))
> > return;
> >
> > va_start(args, fmt);
> > vaf.fmt = fmt;
> > vaf.va = &args;
> > - printk("%sEXT4-fs (%s): %pV\n", prefix, sb->s_id, &vaf);
> > + printk("%sEXT4-fs (%s): %pV\n", prefix, sb ? sb->s_id : "n/a", &vaf);
>
> Tiny nitpick, I might drop "n/a" - I'm not sure that makes anything clearer:
>
> "EXT4-fs (n/a): message" seems confusing, but maybe that's just me.
>
> FWIW xfs just removes the s_id print altogether if it's not available, i.e.:
>
> static void
> __xfs_printk(
> const char *level,
> const struct xfs_mount *mp,
> struct va_format *vaf)
> {
> if (mp && mp->m_super) {
> printk("%sXFS (%s): %pV\n", level, mp->m_super->s_id, vaf);
> return;
> }
> printk("%sXFS: %pV\n", level, vaf);
> }
>
> *shrug* up to personal preference I suppose.
I wanted the message to stay more-or-less uniform, but I think you're
right. I'll drop the (n/a).
-Lukas
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
