Amir Goldstein writes:
Wouldn't it be easier to check max_inodes instead of passing this use_sb_ino arg? Is there any case where they *need* to differ?
Hmm, I suppose probably not? In that case should I just check against SB_KERNMOUNT, since max_inodes can only be 0 in that case?
@@ -3378,6 +3411,8 @@ enum shmem_param { Opt_nr_inodes, Opt_size, Opt_uid, + Opt_inode32, + Opt_inode64,Does not belong to this patch..}; static const struct fs_parameter_spec shmem_param_specs[] = { @@ -3389,6 +3424,8 @@ static const struct fs_parameter_spec shmem_param_specs[] = { fsparam_string("nr_inodes", Opt_nr_inodes), fsparam_string("size", Opt_size), fsparam_u32 ("uid", Opt_uid), + fsparam_flag ("inode32", Opt_inode32), + fsparam_flag ("inode64", Opt_inode64),Ditto
Bleh, I'll fix this and send v3.
{} }; @@ -3690,7 +3727,8 @@ static int shmem_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc) #endif uuid_gen(&sb->s_uuid); - inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, NULL, S_IFDIR | sbinfo->mode, 0, VM_NORESERVE); + inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, NULL, S_IFDIR | sbinfo->mode, 0, + VM_NORESERVE, true);Should usb_sb_ino be true for the kern_mount?? In any case, it wouldn't matter if it was false, hence no need to pass an argument and can either check for sbinfo->max_inodes or the SB_KERNMOUNT flag in shmem_get_inode().
Ok, cool. I'll fix these up and send v3. Thanks!
