Re: [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:14, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:46:24PM +0800, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:42, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:01:10PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> > Sorry I take back the previous patch. It makes sense to not break
>> > existing user space tools, but a warning message looks OK to remind
>> > people of possibly unexpected behavior.
>> >
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âdefault:
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âprintk(KERN_ERR "ramfs: bad mount option: %s\n", p);
>> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return -EINVAL;
>> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â break;
>>
>> hmm, if the warning was wrapped in #ifdef CONFIG_SHMEM, i'd be ok with
>> this. Âotherwise we end up with warnings that can (should) be ignored
>> when tmpfs is being emulated with ramfs.
>
> We may change the "ramfs:" accordingly. But *silently* ignoring
> options is bad anyway?

i really hate nitpicking such minor shit, but reality is that output
displayed in the kernel log that is incorrect is going to cause me
grief via customer support, updating documentation, adding FAQs,
etc... and i doubt i'm the only one here.

my requirement is simple: valid tmpfs options should be silently
consumed (i.e. ignored) when tmpfs is being emulated by ramfs (i.e.
CONFIG_SHMEM=n).

so how about:
default:
    if (!strcmp(sb->s_id, "ramfs"))
        printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: ignoring mount option: %s\n", sb->s_id, p);
    break;
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/