* [RFC] MS_VERBOSE handling in get_sb_bdev() @ 2004-10-14 16:06 Alex Zarochentsev 2004-10-14 18:50 ` Randy.Dunlap 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Alex Zarochentsev @ 2004-10-14 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Hello, Anybody knows why the "silent" agrument of the fs' ->fill_super() routines is passed as ((flags & MS_VERBOSE) ? 1 : 0) ?. It should be !(flags & MS_VERBOSE) instead, yes? I don't belive the bug is not known... Regards, Alex. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] MS_VERBOSE handling in get_sb_bdev() 2004-10-14 16:06 [RFC] MS_VERBOSE handling in get_sb_bdev() Alex Zarochentsev @ 2004-10-14 18:50 ` Randy.Dunlap 2004-10-15 7:03 ` [PATCH] " Alex Zarochentsev 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2004-10-14 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Zarochentsev; +Cc: linux-kernel Alex Zarochentsev wrote: > Hello, > > Anybody knows why the "silent" agrument of the fs' ->fill_super() routines is > passed as ((flags & MS_VERBOSE) ? 1 : 0) ?. It should be !(flags & MS_VERBOSE) > instead, yes? > > I don't belive the bug is not known... I saw several of those about 1 year ago when I updated Al's fs option patches and got them merged. They should be fixed IMO, but it's low priority, they work ("it ain't broke so don't fix it"), and maybe someone else thinks that there is no problem at all, i.e., they aren't broken at all... -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Re: [RFC] MS_VERBOSE handling in get_sb_bdev() 2004-10-14 18:50 ` Randy.Dunlap @ 2004-10-15 7:03 ` Alex Zarochentsev 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Alex Zarochentsev @ 2004-10-15 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Alex Zarochentsev wrote: > >Hello, > > > >Anybody knows why the "silent" agrument of the fs' ->fill_super() routines > >is > >passed as ((flags & MS_VERBOSE) ? 1 : 0) ?. It should be !(flags & > >MS_VERBOSE) > >instead, yes? > > > >I don't belive the bug is not known... > > I saw several of those about 1 year ago when I updated Al's > fs option patches and got them merged. > > They should be fixed IMO, but it's low priority, they work ("it ain't > broke so don't fix it"), and maybe someone else thinks that there is > no problem at all, i.e., they aren't broken at all... The kernel (2.6.9-rc4) patch is simple ================================== --- linux/fs/super.c.orig 2004-10-14 18:12:50.213426568 +0400 +++ linux/fs/super.c 2004-10-14 18:13:46.923805280 +0400 @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ struct super_block *get_sb_bdev(struct f strlcpy(s->s_id, bdevname(bdev, b), sizeof(s->s_id)); s->s_old_blocksize = block_size(bdev); sb_set_blocksize(s, s->s_old_blocksize); - error = fill_super(s, data, flags & MS_VERBOSE ? 1 : 0); + error = fill_super(s, data, !(flags & MS_VERBOSE)); if (error) { up_write(&s->s_umount); deactivate_super(s); ================================== there is another bug in the mount utility, it seems to me. mount never sets MS_VERBOSE. I think it should be set when the mount does not do "fs probing" as in "mount -t auto ". > -- > ~Randy -- Alex. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-10-15 7:06 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-10-14 16:06 [RFC] MS_VERBOSE handling in get_sb_bdev() Alex Zarochentsev 2004-10-14 18:50 ` Randy.Dunlap 2004-10-15 7:03 ` [PATCH] " Alex Zarochentsev
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.