* [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 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 9:29 ` 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 8:32 ` 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 9:25 ` 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 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.