On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 10:33:26PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 08:54:28PM +0800, Jeffle Xu wrote: > > Until then erofs is exactly blockdev based filesystem. In other using > > scenarios (e.g. container image), erofs needs to run upon files. > > > > This patch introduces a new nodev mode, in which erofs could be mounted > > from a bootstrap blob file containing the complete erofs image. > > > > The following patch will introduce a new mount option "uuid", by which > > users could specify the bootstrap blob file. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I think the order of some patches in this patchset can be improved. > > Take this patch as an example. This patch introduces a new mount > option called "uuid", so the kernel will just accept it (which > generates a user-visible impact) after this patch but it doesn't > actually work. > > Therefore, we actually have three different behaviors here: > - kernel doesn't support "uuid" mount option completely; > - kernel support "uuid" but it doesn't work; > - kernel support "uuid" correctly (maybe after some random patch); > > Actually that is bad for bisecting since there are some commits > having temporary behaviors. And we don't know which commit > actually fully implements this "uuid" mount option. > > So personally I think the proper order is just like the bottom-up > approach, and make sure each patch can be tested / bisected > independently. Oh, I may misread this patch, but I still think we'd better to avoid dead paths "TODO" like this as much as possible. Just do in the bottom-up way. Thanks, Gao Xiang
