Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] cramfs: direct memory access support

Al Viro <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-embedded,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:09:23PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > OK...  I wonder if it should simply define stubs for kill_mtd_super(),
> > mtd_unpoint() and kill_block_super() in !CONFIG_MTD and !CONFIG_BLOCK
> > cases.  mount_mtd() and mount_bdev() as well - e.g.  mount_bdev()
> > returning ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) and kill_block_super() being simply BUG()
> > in !CONFIG_BLOCK case.  Then cramfs_kill_sb() would be
> > 	if (sb->s_mtd) {
> > 		if (sbi->mtd_point_size)
> > 			mtd_unpoint(sb->s_mtd, 0, sbi->mtd_point_size);
> > 		kill_mtd_super(sb);
> > 	} else {
> > 		kill_block_super(sb);
> > 	}
> > 	kfree(sbi);
> 
> Well... Stubs have to be named differently or they conflict with 
> existing declarations. At that point that makes for more lines of code 
> compared to the current patch and the naming indirection makes it less 
> obvious when reading the code. Alternatively I could add those stubs in 
> the corresponding header files and #ifdef the existing declarations 
> away. That might look somewhat less cluttered in the main code but it 
> also hides what is actually going on and left me unconvinced. And I'm 
> not sure this is worth it in the end given this is not a common 
> occurrence in the kernel either.

What I mean is this (completely untested) for CONFIG_BLOCK side of things,
with something similar for CONFIG_MTD one:

Provide definitions of mount_bdev/kill_block_super() in case !CONFIG_BLOCK

mount_bdev() and kill_block_super() are defined only when CONFIG_BLOCK is
defined; however, their declarations in fs.h are unconditional.  We could
make these conditional upon CONFIG_BLOCK as well, but it's easy to provide
inline definitions for !CONFIG_BLOCK case - mount_bdev() should fail with
ENODEV, while kill_block_super() can be simply BUG(); there should be no
superblock instances with non-NULL ->s_bdev on such configs.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 339e73742e73..e773c1c51aad 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -2094,9 +2094,18 @@ struct file_system_type {
 extern struct dentry *mount_ns(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
 	int flags, void *data, void *ns, struct user_namespace *user_ns,
 	int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int));
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
 extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
 	int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data,
 	int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int));
+#else
+static inline struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
+	int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data,
+	int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int))
+{
+	return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+}
+#endif
 extern struct dentry *mount_single(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
 	int flags, void *data,
 	int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int));
@@ -2105,7 +2114,14 @@ extern struct dentry *mount_nodev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
 	int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int));
 extern struct dentry *mount_subtree(struct vfsmount *mnt, const char *path);
 void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb);
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
 void kill_block_super(struct super_block *sb);
+#else
+static inline void kill_block_super(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	BUG();
+}
+#endif
 void kill_anon_super(struct super_block *sb);
 void kill_litter_super(struct super_block *sb);
 void deactivate_super(struct super_block *sb);
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.