[PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Brian Gerst]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

Seperates msdos_sb_info from struct super_block for msdos and vfat. 
Umsdos is terminally broken and is not included.

-- 

						Brian Gerst

[-- Attachment #2: sb-fat-1 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 7923 bytes --]

diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/fat/fatfs_syms.c linux/fs/fat/fatfs_syms.c
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/fat/fatfs_syms.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:15 2002
+++ linux/fs/fat/fatfs_syms.c	Wed Mar 13 09:28:06 2002
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_attach);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_detach);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_build_inode);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_read_super);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_fill_super);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_search_long);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_readdir);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fat_scan);
diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/fat/inode.c linux/fs/fat/inode.c
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/fat/inode.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:29 2002
+++ linux/fs/fat/inode.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
@@ -167,32 +167,36 @@
 
 void fat_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-	if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->cvf_format->cvf_version) {
-		dec_cvf_format_use_count_by_version(MSDOS_SB(sb)->cvf_format->cvf_version);
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->cvf_format->unmount_cvf(sb);
+	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
+
+	if (sbi->cvf_format->cvf_version) {
+		dec_cvf_format_use_count_by_version(sbi->cvf_format->cvf_version);
+		sbi->cvf_format->unmount_cvf(sb);
 	}
-	if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->fat_bits == 32) {
+	if (sbi->fat_bits == 32) {
 		fat_clusters_flush(sb);
 	}
 	fat_cache_inval_dev(sb);
 	set_blocksize (sb->s_dev,BLOCK_SIZE);
-	if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_disk) {
-		unload_nls(MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_disk);
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_disk = NULL;
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.codepage = 0;
-	}
-	if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_io) {
-		unload_nls(MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_io);
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->nls_io = NULL;
+	if (sbi->nls_disk) {
+		unload_nls(sbi->nls_disk);
+		sbi->nls_disk = NULL;
+		sbi->options.codepage = 0;
+	}
+	if (sbi->nls_io) {
+		unload_nls(sbi->nls_io);
+		sbi->nls_io = NULL;
 	}
 	/*
 	 * Note: the iocharset option might have been specified
 	 * without enabling nls_io, so check for it here.
 	 */
-	if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.iocharset) {
-		kfree(MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.iocharset);
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.iocharset = NULL;
+	if (sbi->options.iocharset) {
+		kfree(sbi->options.iocharset);
+		sbi->options.iocharset = NULL;
 	}
+	sb->u.generic_sbp = NULL;
+	kfree(sbi);
 }
 
 
@@ -582,18 +586,14 @@
 
 /*
  * Read the super block of an MS-DOS FS.
- *
- * Note that this may be called from vfat_read_super
- * with some fields already initialized.
  */
-struct super_block *
-fat_read_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent,
-		struct inode_operations *fs_dir_inode_ops)
+int fat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent,
+		   struct inode_operations *fs_dir_inode_ops, int isvfat)
 {
 	struct inode *root_inode;
 	struct buffer_head *bh;
 	struct fat_boot_sector *b;
-	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
+	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi;
 	int logical_sector_size, fat_clusters, debug, cp;
 	unsigned int total_sectors, rootdir_sectors;
 	long error = -EIO;
@@ -602,12 +602,19 @@
 	char cvf_format[21];
 	char cvf_options[101];
 
+	sbi = kmalloc(sizeof(struct msdos_sb_info), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!sbi)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	sb->u.generic_sbp = sbi;
+	memset(sbi, 0, sizeof(struct msdos_sb_info));
+
 	cvf_format[0] = '\0';
 	cvf_options[0] = '\0';
 	sbi->private_data = NULL;
 
 	sb->s_magic = MSDOS_SUPER_MAGIC;
 	sb->s_op = &fat_sops;
+	sbi->options.isvfat = isvfat;
 	sbi->dir_ops = fs_dir_inode_ops;
 	sbi->cvf_format = &default_cvf;
 
@@ -830,10 +837,10 @@
 		sbi->cvf_format = cvf_formats[i];
 		++cvf_format_use_count[i];
 	}
-	return sb;
+	return 0;
 
 out_invalid:
-	error = 0;
+	error = -EINVAL;
 
 out_fail:
 	if (sbi->nls_io)
@@ -845,8 +852,10 @@
 	if (sbi->private_data)
 		kfree(sbi->private_data);
 	sbi->private_data = NULL;
+	sb->u.generic_sbp = NULL;
+	kfree(sbi);
 
-	return ERR_PTR(error);
+	return error;
 }
 
 int fat_statfs(struct super_block *sb,struct statfs *buf)
diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
+++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
@@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
 
 int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
 {
-	struct super_block *res;
+	int res;
 
-	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
-	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
-	if (IS_ERR(res))
-		return PTR_ERR(res);
-	if (res == NULL) {
+	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
+	if (res) {
 		if (!silent)
 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
 			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return res;
 	}
 
 	sb->s_root->d_op = &msdos_dentry_operations;
diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/vfat/namei.c linux/fs/vfat/namei.c
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/vfat/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:11 2002
+++ linux/fs/vfat/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
@@ -1285,25 +1285,25 @@
 
 int vfat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
 {
-	struct super_block *res;
+	int res;
+	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi;
   
-	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 1;
-	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &vfat_dir_inode_operations);
-	if (IS_ERR(res))
-		return PTR_ERR(res);
-	if (res == NULL) {
+	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &vfat_dir_inode_operations, 1);
+	if (res) {
 		if (!silent)
 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
 			       " VFAT filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return res;
 	}
 
-	if (parse_options((char *) data, &(MSDOS_SB(sb)->options))) {
-		MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.dotsOK = 0;
-		if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.posixfs) {
-			MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.name_check = 's';
+	sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
+
+	if (parse_options((char *) data, &(sbi->options))) {
+		sbi->options.dotsOK = 0;
+		if (sbi->options.posixfs) {
+			sbi->options.name_check = 's';
 		}
-		if (MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.name_check != 's') {
+		if (sbi->options.name_check != 's') {
 			sb->s_root->d_op = &vfat_dentry_ops[0];
 		} else {
 			sb->s_root->d_op = &vfat_dentry_ops[2];
diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/include/linux/fs.h linux/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/include/linux/fs.h	Tue Mar 12 22:44:13 2002
+++ linux/include/linux/fs.h	Wed Mar 13 09:24:44 2002
@@ -652,7 +652,6 @@
 #include <linux/ext3_fs_sb.h>
 #include <linux/hpfs_fs_sb.h>
 #include <linux/ntfs_fs_sb.h>
-#include <linux/msdos_fs_sb.h>
 #include <linux/iso_fs_sb.h>
 #include <linux/nfs_fs_sb.h>
 #include <linux/sysv_fs_sb.h>
@@ -708,7 +707,6 @@
 		struct ext3_sb_info	ext3_sb;
 		struct hpfs_sb_info	hpfs_sb;
 		struct ntfs_sb_info	ntfs_sb;
-		struct msdos_sb_info	msdos_sb;
 		struct isofs_sb_info	isofs_sb;
 		struct nfs_sb_info	nfs_sb;
 		struct sysv_sb_info	sysv_sb;
diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/include/linux/msdos_fs.h linux/include/linux/msdos_fs.h
--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/include/linux/msdos_fs.h	Thu Mar  7 21:18:56 2002
+++ linux/include/linux/msdos_fs.h	Wed Mar 13 09:27:13 2002
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
  * The MS-DOS filesystem constants/structures
  */
 #include <linux/msdos_fs_i.h>
+#include <linux/msdos_fs_sb.h>
 
 #include <asm/byteorder.h>
 
@@ -53,7 +54,11 @@
 #define MSDOS_VALID_MODE (S_IFREG | S_IFDIR | S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)
 	/* valid file mode bits */
 
-#define MSDOS_SB(s) (&((s)->u.msdos_sb))
+static inline struct msdos_sb_info *MSDOS_SB(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	return sb->u.generic_sbp;
+}
+
 static inline struct msdos_inode_info *MSDOS_I(struct inode *inode)
 {
 	return list_entry(inode, struct msdos_inode_info, vfs_inode);
@@ -282,9 +287,8 @@
 extern void fat_delete_inode(struct inode *inode);
 extern void fat_clear_inode(struct inode *inode);
 extern void fat_put_super(struct super_block *sb);
-extern struct super_block *
-fat_read_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent,
-	       struct inode_operations *fs_dir_inode_ops);
+int fat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent,
+		   struct inode_operations *fs_dir_inode_ops, int isvfat);
 extern int fat_statfs(struct super_block *sb, struct statfs *buf);
 extern void fat_write_inode(struct inode *inode, int wait);
 extern int fat_notify_change(struct dentry * dentry, struct iattr * attr);

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Alexander Viro]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brian Gerst wrote:

> Seperates msdos_sb_info from struct super_block for msdos and vfat. 
> Umsdos is terminally broken and is not included.

We have everything needed to fix^Wrewrite umsdos and I hope to do that
this week.  Main idea of the rewrite: turn it into proper layered
filesystem (i.e. let the underlying layer have its own superblock,
inodes, etc.)...

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Hi,

Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:

> diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
> --- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
> +++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
> @@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
>  
>  int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
>  {
> -	struct super_block *res;
> +	int res;
>  
> -	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
> -	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
> -	if (IS_ERR(res))
> -		return PTR_ERR(res);
> -	if (res == NULL) {
> +	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
> +	if (res) {
>  		if (!silent)
>  			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
>  			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);

If the error is I/O error, I think we shouldn't output this message.
What do you think about this?

> -		return -EINVAL;
> +		return res;
>  	}
>  
>  	sb->s_root->d_op = &msdos_dentry_operations;
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:
> 
> > diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
> > --- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
> > +++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
> > @@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
> >  
> >  int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
> >  {
> > -	struct super_block *res;
> > +	int res;
> >  
> > -	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
> > -	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(res))
> > -		return PTR_ERR(res);
> > -	if (res == NULL) {
> > +	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
> > +	if (res) {
> >  		if (!silent)
> >  			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
> >  			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
> 
> If the error is I/O error, I think we shouldn't output this message.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the error is except -EINVAL,

Sorry.

> What do you think about this?
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Brian Gerst]

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> writes:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>>diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
>>>--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
>>>+++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
>>>@@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
>>> 
>>> int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
>>> {
>>>-	struct super_block *res;
>>>+	int res;
>>> 
>>>-	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
>>>-	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
>>>-	if (IS_ERR(res))
>>>-		return PTR_ERR(res);
>>>-	if (res == NULL) {
>>>+	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
>>>+	if (res) {
>>> 		if (!silent)
>>> 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
>>> 			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
>>
>>If the error is I/O error, I think we shouldn't output this message.
> 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If the error is except -EINVAL,
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> 
>>What do you think about this?
> 

Why not?  The statement is true, and other filesystems do complain when 
there is an I/O error.

-- 

						Brian Gerst

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:

> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> > OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> writes:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
> >>>--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
> >>>+++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
> >>>@@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
> >>> int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
> >>> {
> >>>-	struct super_block *res;
> >>>+	int res;
> >>> -	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
> >>>-	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
> >>>-	if (IS_ERR(res))
> >>>-		return PTR_ERR(res);
> >>>-	if (res == NULL) {
> >>>+	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
> >>>+	if (res) {
> >>> 		if (!silent)
> >>> 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
> >>> 			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
> >>
> >>If the error is I/O error, I think we shouldn't output this message.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > If the error is except -EINVAL,
> > Sorry.
> >
> >>What do you think about this?
> >
> 
> Why not?  The statement is true, and other filesystems do complain
> when there is an I/O error.

Umm, almost all filesystems doesn't output this message when the I/O error
occurs, AFAIK.

I think that this message indicate that a device isn't a FAT
filesystem.  And, of course, if error is the I/O error,
fat_full_super() can't detect whether it is FAT filesystem or not.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Brian Gerst]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>>
>>>OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>diff -urN linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c linux/fs/msdos/namei.c
>>>>>--- linux-2.5.7-pre1/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar  7 21:18:32 2002
>>>>>+++ linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Wed Mar 13 08:20:12 2002
>>>>>@@ -603,17 +603,14 @@
>>>>>int msdos_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent)
>>>>>{
>>>>>-	struct super_block *res;
>>>>>+	int res;
>>>>>-	MSDOS_SB(sb)->options.isvfat = 0;
>>>>>-	res = fat_read_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations);
>>>>>-	if (IS_ERR(res))
>>>>>-		return PTR_ERR(res);
>>>>>-	if (res == NULL) {
>>>>>+	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
>>>>>+	if (res) {
>>>>>		if (!silent)
>>>>>			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
>>>>>			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
>>>>
>>>>If the error is I/O error, I think we shouldn't output this message.
>>>
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>If the error is except -EINVAL,
>>>Sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>>What do you think about this?
>>>
>>Why not?  The statement is true, and other filesystems do complain
>>when there is an I/O error.
> 
> 
> Umm, almost all filesystems doesn't output this message when the I/O error
> occurs, AFAIK.
> 
> I think that this message indicate that a device isn't a FAT
> filesystem.  And, of course, if error is the I/O error,
> fat_full_super() can't detect whether it is FAT filesystem or not.

Patch attached.

-- 

						Brian Gerst

[-- Attachment #2: sb-fat-2 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

diff -urN linux/fs/msdos/namei.c linux2/fs/msdos/namei.c
--- linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:53:20 2002
+++ linux2/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:54:53 2002
@@ -607,7 +607,7 @@
 
 	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
 	if (res) {
-		if (!silent)
+		if (res == -EINVAL && !silent)
 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
 			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
 		return res;
diff -urN linux/fs/vfat/namei.c linux2/fs/vfat/namei.c
--- linux/fs/vfat/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:53:20 2002
+++ linux2/fs/vfat/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:55:20 2002
@@ -1290,7 +1290,7 @@
   
 	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &vfat_dir_inode_operations, 1);
 	if (res) {
-		if (!silent)
+		if (res == -EINVAL && !silent)
 			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
 			       " VFAT filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
 		return res;

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org> writes:

> Patch attached.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 						Brian Gerst

Thanks a lot!

> diff -urN linux/fs/msdos/namei.c linux2/fs/msdos/namei.c
> --- linux/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:53:20 2002
> +++ linux2/fs/msdos/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:54:53 2002
> @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@
>  
>  	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &msdos_dir_inode_operations, 0);
>  	if (res) {
> -		if (!silent)
> +		if (res == -EINVAL && !silent)
>  			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
>  			       " MSDOS filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
>  		return res;
> diff -urN linux/fs/vfat/namei.c linux2/fs/vfat/namei.c
> --- linux/fs/vfat/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:53:20 2002
> +++ linux2/fs/vfat/namei.c	Thu Mar 14 10:55:20 2002
> @@ -1290,7 +1290,7 @@
>    
>  	res = fat_fill_super(sb, data, silent, &vfat_dir_inode_operations, 1);
>  	if (res) {
> -		if (!silent)
> +		if (res == -EINVAL && !silent)
>  			printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Can't find a valid"
>  			       " VFAT filesystem on dev %s.\n", sb->s_id);
>  		return res;

-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Alexander Viro]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> Does this mean umsdos can be layered atop of wider range of filesystems than 
> just msdos? That would be cool.

Yes, but what's cool about it?  If not for the fact that there are weird
setups that actually use umsdos (i.e. compatibility reasons), the best
way to deal with it would be rm -rf...  If underlying filesystem has
normal semantics - you don't need anything, if it doesn't...  I'd suggest
to use combination of tar(1) and ramfs.  At least that way you get full
Unix semantics - no mess with rename breaking links, etc.

> Also, would it be possible to mount both underlying msdos fs and umsdos fs 
> layered on top of it at the same time (on different mountpoints)?

No.  That stuff is ugly as it is and trying to make it deal with unexpected
changes of underlying fs... <shudder>

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Denis Vlasenko]

On 13 March 2002 22:35, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > Seperates msdos_sb_info from struct super_block for msdos and vfat.
> > Umsdos is terminally broken and is not included.
>
> We have everything needed to fix^Wrewrite umsdos and I hope to do that
> this week.  Main idea of the rewrite: turn it into proper layered
> filesystem (i.e. let the underlying layer have its own superblock,
> inodes, etc.)...

Does this mean umsdos can be layered atop of wider range of filesystems than 
just msdos? That would be cool.

Also, would it be possible to mount both underlying msdos fs and umsdos fs 
layered on top of it at the same time (on different mountpoints)?
--
vda

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Denis Vlasenko]

On 15 March 2002 09:27, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > Does this mean umsdos can be layered atop of wider range of filesystems
> > than just msdos? That would be cool.
>
> Yes, but what's cool about it?  If not for the fact that there are weird
> setups that actually use umsdos (i.e. compatibility reasons), the best
> way to deal with it would be rm -rf...  If underlying filesystem has
> normal semantics - you don't need anything, if it doesn't...  I'd suggest
> to use combination of tar(1) and ramfs.  At least that way you get full
> Unix semantics - no mess with rename breaking links, etc.

Well, I initially come here from DOS/Win world and in fact actually used 
umsdos for some time (heck, it's still installed on one abandoned box).
But I presume there are other worlds (maybe Mac?) with filesystems unsuited 
for Linux root fs (like fat), why invent u[fs] for them too?

OTOH it means extra effort in umsdos rewrite, and since I don't do that 
effort, I'd better shut up now.
--
vda

Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat

[Kasper Dupont]

Alexander Viro wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brian Gerst wrote:
> 
> > Seperates msdos_sb_info from struct super_block for msdos and vfat.
> > Umsdos is terminally broken and is not included.
> 
> We have everything needed to fix^Wrewrite umsdos and I hope to do that
> this week.

While we are at it I have an idea that might make sense. On recent
kernels I don't see as much reason for umsdos' pseudoroot feature as
in earlier kernels. The same effect could be achieved by using
bindmounts and/or pivot_root. So IMHO it would be neat if umsdos just
setup the two mounts instead of using it's own implementation.

-- 
Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet.
For sending spam use mailto:razor-report@daimi.au.dk