From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:58754 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934563AbeBMJaq (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 04:30:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: verify max_inline mount parameter To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20180212153546.19443-1-anand.jain@oracle.com> <20180212171314.GM3003@twin.jikos.cz> From: Anand Jain Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:32:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180212171314.GM3003@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/13/2018 01:13 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:35:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> We aren't verifying the parameter passed to the max_inline mount option, >> so we won't report and fail the mount if a junk value is specified for >> example, -o max_inline=abc. >> This patch converts the max_inline option to %d and checks if it's a >> number >= 0. > > Oh right, the parser can verify that for us. As the %d gets stored to > int, there's no reason to store fs_info::max_inline as u64. fixed this in the patch set sent out. > Looking at the parser capabilities, it accepts %u and matches an > unsigned type, which we use for all our options. It would be good to > unify that too. fixed this too. > Please update this patch and possibly send more cleaning up the rest of > the match strings, and the max_inline type. Thanks. Sure. will do. Thanks, Anand > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >