On 1/4/22 10:58 PM, Gao Xiang wrote: > 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. > OK, it is better to be put at the latter part of the whole patch set. Would be fixed in the next version. Thanks. -- Thanks, Jeffle
