* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
@ 2019-06-20 8:30 Yue Hu
2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
2019-06-21 7:01 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2019-06-20 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
From: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>
erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
---
drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
index df40654..06024ac 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
@@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
.get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
};
-#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
.prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
.flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
.get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
};
-#endif
const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
&erofs_xattr_user_handler,
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 8:30 [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY Yue Hu
@ 2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
2019-06-20 9:22 ` Chao Yu
2019-06-20 9:25 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-21 7:01 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gao Xiang @ 2019-06-20 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi Yue,
On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>
> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> index df40654..06024ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
> -#endif
Thanks for your patch.
In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
I am not sure...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
@ 2019-06-20 9:22 ` Chao Yu
2019-06-20 9:29 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:25 ` Yue Hu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-06-20 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Yue,
>
> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
>> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>>
>> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
>> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels
feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused
variable, so I think we can't remove it.
Thanks,
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>> index df40654..06024ac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>> };
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
>> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
>> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
>> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>> };
>> -#endif
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
> I am not sure...
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
>>
>> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
>> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
>>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
2019-06-20 9:22 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-06-20 9:25 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:39 ` Gao Xiang
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2019-06-20 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:32:01 +0800
Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Yue,
>
> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
> > From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> >
> > erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> > to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> > index df40654..06024ac 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> > @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> > .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> > };
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> > const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> > .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> > .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> > .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> > };
> > -#endif
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
> I am not sure...
Yes, just like erofs_xattr_user_handler as below in System.map.
ffffffff820ec2a0 R erofs_xattr_security_handler
ffffffff820ec2e0 R erofs_xattr_trusted_handler
ffffffff820ec320 R erofs_xattr_user_handler
Thx.
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
> >
> > const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
> > &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 9:22 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-06-20 9:29 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:52 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2019-06-20 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:22:48 +0800
Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi Yue,
> >
> > On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
> >> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> >>
> >> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> >> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>
> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels
> feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused
> variable, so I think we can't remove it.
However, erofs_xattr_security_handler will not unused under CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
condition, right?
Thx.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >> index df40654..06024ac 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> >> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> >> };
> >>
> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> >> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> >> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> >> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> >> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> >> };
> >> -#endif
> >
> > Thanks for your patch.
> >
> > In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
> > I am not sure...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gao Xiang
> >
> >>
> >> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
> >> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
> >>
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 9:25 ` Yue Hu
@ 2019-06-20 9:39 ` Gao Xiang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gao Xiang @ 2019-06-20 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 2019/6/20 17:25, Yue Hu wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:32:01 +0800
> Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yue,
>>
>> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
>>> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>>>
>>> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
>>> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>> index df40654..06024ac 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>>> };
>>>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
>>> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
>>> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
>>> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>>> };
>>> -#endif
>>
>> Thanks for your patch.
>>
>> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
>> I am not sure...
>
> Yes, just like erofs_xattr_user_handler as below in System.map.
>
> ffffffff820ec2a0 R erofs_xattr_security_handler
> ffffffff820ec2e0 R erofs_xattr_trusted_handler
> ffffffff820ec320 R erofs_xattr_user_handler
As a usual practice, CONFIG_{EXT2,EXT4,F2FS,EROFS}_FS_SECURITY are defined as
kernel configuations.
It seems that for ext2/ext4 they leave
const struct xattr_handler ext2_xattr_security_handler = {
in xattr_security.c and the Makefiles are similar as
fs/ext2/Makefile
13:ext2-$(CONFIG_EXT2_FS_SECURITY) += xattr_security.o
But for f2fs, f2fs_xattr_security_handler is not wrapped with any configuration.
Actually I think that is not a big deal, I'd like to listen Chao and Greg's
idea about this...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Thx.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gao Xiang
>>
>>>
>>> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
>>> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
>>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 9:29 ` Yue Hu
@ 2019-06-20 9:52 ` Chao Yu
2019-06-20 9:56 ` Yue Hu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-06-20 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 2019/6/20 17:29, Yue Hu wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:22:48 +0800
> Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>> Hi Yue,
>>>
>>> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
>>>> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>>>>
>>>> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
>>>> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>>
>> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels
>> feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused
>> variable, so I think we can't remove it.
>
> However, erofs_xattr_security_handler will not unused under CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> condition, right?
Yes, we will referred it in erofs_xattr_handlers anyway, so, maybe we can remove
__maybe_unused instead?
Thanks,
>
> Thx.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>>> index df40654..06024ac 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
>>>> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
>>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
>>>> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
>>>> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
>>>> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
>>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
>>>> };
>>>> -#endif
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch.
>>>
>>> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
>>> I am not sure...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
>>>> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 9:52 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-06-20 9:56 ` Yue Hu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2019-06-20 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:52:39 +0800
Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2019/6/20 17:29, Yue Hu wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:22:48 +0800
> > Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >>> Hi Yue,
> >>>
> >>> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote:
> >>>> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> >>>> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
> >>
> >> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels
> >> feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused
> >> variable, so I think we can't remove it.
> >
> > However, erofs_xattr_security_handler will not unused under CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> > condition, right?
>
> Yes, we will referred it in erofs_xattr_handlers anyway, so, maybe we can remove
> __maybe_unused instead?
It's good to me.
Thx.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thx.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >>>> index df40654..06024ac 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> >>>> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> >>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> >>>> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> >>>> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> >>>> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> >>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> >>>> };
> >>>> -#endif
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your patch.
> >>>
> >>> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata section?
> >>> I am not sure...
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Gao Xiang
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = {
> >>>> &erofs_xattr_user_handler,
> >>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
2019-06-20 8:30 [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY Yue Hu
2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
@ 2019-06-21 7:01 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2019-06-21 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019@04:30:04PM +0800, Yue Hu wrote:
> From: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
>
> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need
> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2 at yulong.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> index df40654..06024ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c
> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY
> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = {
> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY,
> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get,
> };
> -#endif
It's nicer just to leave this as-is for now, the memory savings isn't
much at all.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-06-21 7:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-20 8:30 [PATCH] staging: erofs: remove needless CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY Yue Hu
2019-06-20 8:32 ` Gao Xiang
2019-06-20 9:22 ` Chao Yu
2019-06-20 9:29 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:52 ` Chao Yu
2019-06-20 9:56 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:25 ` Yue Hu
2019-06-20 9:39 ` Gao Xiang
2019-06-21 7:01 ` Greg KH
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.