On 4/6/17 9:34 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> As with any other option, rtinherit=[0|1], but minval was incorrectly
> set to 1, so it was not possible to disable this option.
Long ago, when this option was added, it was simply a flag with
no option parsing, i.e. "-d rtinherit"
so I just want to double check ...
1) was it intentional that this turned into a "=0/=1" type option,
i.e. an option which can be specified as disabled, essentially restating
the default? Is it the intent that every flag option must now take a
value, and that it must take both "off" and "on" values? Just checking
that I haven't lost the thread, here.
IOWS: we used to have only "-d rtinherit" But I think now we accept
-d rtinherit, -d rtinherit=0, and -d rtinherit=1. Maybe it's water
under the bridge, I don't see the use in adding value parsing to
something that was just a simple flag before. Can you enlighten
me?
2) really, this and projinherit and, um, extszinherit should
probably all go away. They were written for testing, nothing
tests them, and they aren't documented. Any volunteers for
that? It actually finds its way outside of pure mkfs code,
so it's a little tricky to completely eradicate it, but it
could be done in 2 steps I think.
thanks,
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> index 6fedc05c..5aac4d1b 100644
> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ struct opt_params dopts = {
> },
> { .index = D_RTINHERIT,
> .conflicts = { LAST_CONFLICT },
> - .minval = 1,
> + .minval = 0,
> .maxval = 1,
> .defaultval = 1,
> },
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
