On 2024/10/21 20:27, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:54:12PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Christian,
On 2024/10/10 17:48, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:31:50 +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
As Allison reported [1], currently get_tree_bdev() will store
"Can't lookup blockdev" error message. Although it makes sense for
pure bdev-based fses, this message may mislead users who try to use
EROFS file-backed mounts since get_tree_nodev() is used as a fallback
then.
Add get_tree_bdev_flags() to specify extensible flags [2] and
GET_TREE_BDEV_QUIET_LOOKUP to silence "Can't lookup blockdev" message
since it's misleading to EROFS file-backed mounts now.
[...]
Applied to the vfs.misc branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree.
Patches in the vfs.misc branch should appear in linux-next soon.
Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a
new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it.
It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the
patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated.
Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase,
trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch.
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git
branch: vfs.misc
[1/2] fs/super.c: introduce get_tree_bdev_flags()
https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/f54acb32dff2
[2/2] erofs: use get_tree_bdev_flags() to avoid misleading messages
https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/83e6e973d9c9
Anyway, I'm not sure what's your thoughts about this, so I try to
write an email again.
As Allison suggested in the email [1], "..so probably it should get
fixed before the final release.". Although I'm pretty fine to leave
it in "vfs.misc" for the next merge window (6.13) instead, it could
cause an unnecessary backport to the stable kernel.
Oh, the file changes have been merged during the v6.12 merge window?
Sorry, that wasn't clear.
Well, this is a bit annoying but yes, we can get that fixed upstream
then. I'll move it to vfs.fixes...
Many thanks for the reply!
Yeah, the feature is already usable [1] and it will be used for
several use cases, yet the unexpected message might be confusing.
Anyway, both options are fine to me, but "vfs.fixes" may be better
to avoid unnecesary backporting.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/990750
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
