Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] erofs: use get_tree_bdev_flags() to avoid misleading messages

[Gao Xiang]

On 2024/10/9 15:37, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Christoph,

...

> > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > index 666873f745da..b89836a8760d 100644
> > > --- a/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > @@ -705,7 +705,9 @@ static int erofs_fc_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc)
> > >       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ONDEMAND) && sbi->fsid)
> > >           return get_tree_nodev(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super);
> > > -    ret = get_tree_bdev(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super);
> > > +    ret = get_tree_bdev_flags(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super,
> > > +        IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EROFS_FS_BACKED_BY_FILE) ?
> > > +            GET_TREE_BDEV_QUIET_LOOKUP : 0);
> >
> > Why not pass it unconditionally and provide your own more useful
> > error message at the end of the function if you could not find any
> > source?
>
> My own (potential) concern is that if CONFIG_EROFS_FS_BACKED_BY_FILE
> is off, EROFS should just behave as other pure bdev fses since I'm
> not sure if some userspace program really relies on
> "Can't lookup blockdev" behavior.
>
> .. Yet that is just my own potential worry anyway.

Many thanks all for the review... So I guess it sounds fine?



Hi Christian,

If they also look good to you, since it's a VFS change,
if possible, could you apply these two patches through
the VFS tree for this cycle?  There is a redundant blank
line removal in the first patch, I guess you could help
adjust or I need to submit another version?

I also have another related fix in erofs tree to address
a syzbot issue
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240917130803.32418-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but it shouldn't cause any conflict with the second
patch though..

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang