On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:41:48AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> +static const struct fs_parameter_description xfs_fs_parameters = {
> + .name = "XFS",
> + .specs = xfs_param_specs,
> +};
Well spell xfs in lower case in the file system type, so I think we should
spell it the same here.
Btw, can we keep all the mount code together where most of it already
is at the top of the file? I know the existing version has some remount
stuff at the bottom, but as that get entirely rewritten we might as well
move it all up.
> + int silent = fc->sb_flags & SB_SILENT;
The silent variable is only used once, so we might as well remove it.
> + struct xfs_mount *mp = fc->s_fs_info;
> +
> + /*
> + * mp and ctx are stored in the fs_context when it is
> + * initialized. mp is transferred to the superblock on
> + * a successful mount, but if an error occurs before the
> + * transfer we have to free it here.
> + */
> + if (mp) {
> + xfs_free_names(mp);
> + kfree(mp);
> + }
We always pair xfs_free_names with freeing the mount structure.
I think it would be nice to add an xfs_free_mount that does both
as a refactoring at the beginning of the series.
> +static const struct fs_context_operations xfs_context_ops = {
> + .parse_param = xfs_parse_param,
> + .get_tree = xfs_get_tree,
> + .reconfigure = xfs_reconfigure,
> + .free = xfs_fc_free,
> +};
Should these all get a prefix like xfs_fc_free? Maybe xfs_fsctx
to be a little bit more descriptive?
