CC'ing MTD
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> static struct kmem_cache *romfs_inode_cachep;
> @@ -416,8 +417,14 @@ static void romfs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> static int romfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
> {
> struct super_block *sb = dentry->d_sb;
> - u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
> + u64 id = 0;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK
> + id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD
> + id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_dev);
> +#endif
How is this supposed to work with CONFIG_ROMFS_BACKED_BY_BOTH=y?
> buf->f_type = ROMFS_MAGIC;
> buf->f_namelen = ROMFS_MAXFN;
> buf->f_bsize = ROMBSIZE;
> @@ -489,6 +496,13 @@ static int romfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME;
> sb->s_op = &romfs_super_ops;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD
> + /* Use same dev ID from the underlying mtdblock device */
> + if (sb->s_mtd)
> + sb->s_dev = MKDEV(MTD_BLOCK_MAJOR, sb->s_mtd->index);
> + else
> + sb->s_dev = MKDEV(MTD_BLOCK_MAJOR, 0);
Hmm, when there is no MTD, s_dev is still equal to mtd0, since mtd0 is
->index of
value 0. This seems fishy to me.
--
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
