Re: [PATCH] qnx4: convert qnx4 to use the new mount api

[Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:49:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/26/24 4:46 PM, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > Convert the qnx4 filesystem to use the new mount API.
> > 
> > Tested mount, umount, and remount using a qnx4 boot image.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/qnx4/inode.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/qnx4/inode.c b/fs/qnx4/inode.c
> > index 6eb9bb369b57..c36fbe45a0e9 100644
> > --- a/fs/qnx4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/qnx4/inode.c
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
> >  #include <linux/writeback.h>
> >  #include <linux/statfs.h>
> > +#include <linux/fs_context.h>
> >  #include "qnx4.h"
> >  
> >  #define QNX4_VERSION  4
> > @@ -30,28 +31,33 @@ static const struct super_operations qnx4_sops;
> >  
> >  static struct inode *qnx4_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb);
> >  static void qnx4_free_inode(struct inode *inode);
> > -static int qnx4_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data);
> >  static int qnx4_statfs(struct dentry *, struct kstatfs *);
> > +static int qnx4_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc);
> >  
> >  static const struct super_operations qnx4_sops =
> >  {
> >  	.alloc_inode	= qnx4_alloc_inode,
> >  	.free_inode	= qnx4_free_inode,
> >  	.statfs		= qnx4_statfs,
> > -	.remount_fs	= qnx4_remount,
> >  };
> >  
> > -static int qnx4_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
> > +static int qnx4_reconfigure(struct fs_context *fc)
> >  {
> > -	struct qnx4_sb_info *qs;
> > +	struct super_block *sb = fc->root->d_sb;
> > +	struct qnx4_sb_info *qs = sb->s_fs_info;
> 
> You assign *qs here at declaration
>   
> >  	sync_filesystem(sb);
> >  	qs = qnx4_sb(sb);
> 
> and then reassign it here (qnx4_sb() just gets sb->s_fs_info as well)
> 
> Don't need both, I'd stick with just the uninitialized *qs as was
> originally in qnx4_remount().

I did wonder about that. I'll submit a v2. Thanks for your review.
-Bill

> 
> The rest looks fine to me,
> -Eric
> 
>