From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20408C43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A8321739 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="SUKC6cly" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727656AbfLQMUF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:20:05 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:54049 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726859AbfLQMUF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:20:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1576585204; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B0+KY2LgohuAAUeLzqgL5r7ybIqzWDh0cTOzyxzvRko=; b=SUKC6clyluwOGCEhhe41LeX8/XfIcP10IH4xoijLBi2rpL+jSgHKMcW9FF3DVrPSz+dHyY dunuHONI/1hg1Jbs3cyPaYz0qTl8JL/NC6cL/Ta6C5Y5mML/Md8n+nLz7Vgop/DwI+J9ow yrmrgVm3WgYZS4uAIQNjxkMXy0fqW+E= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-81-h1B4o9tNNeSyw-9rJna_GA-1; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:20:03 -0500 X-MC-Unique: h1B4o9tNNeSyw-9rJna_GA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D77D8056B1; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work (ovpn-205-130.brq.redhat.com [10.40.205.130]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027AD7C830; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:19:56 +0100 From: Lukas Czerner To: Al Viro Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] ext4: Add fs parameter description Message-ID: <20191217121956.amsymslmuoy6kzu4@work> References: <20191106101457.11237-1-lczerner@redhat.com> <20191106101457.11237-3-lczerner@redhat.com> <20191217004419.GA6833@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191217004419.GA6833@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:44:19AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > + fsparam_string_empty > > + ("usrjquota", Opt_usrjquota), > > + fsparam_string_empty > > + ("grpjquota", Opt_grpjquota), > > Umm... That makes ...,usrjquota,... equivalent to ...,usrjquota=,... > unless I'm misreading the series. Different from mainline, right? Unfortunatelly yes, I do not think this is a problem, but if you have a solution within the new mount api framework I am happy to use it. > > > + fsparam_bool ("barrier", Opt_barrier), > > + fsparam_flag ("nobarrier", Opt_nobarrier), > > That's even more interesting. Current mainline: > barrier OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > barrier=0 OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > barrier=42 OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > barrier=yes error > barrier=no error > nobarrier OK, clears EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > Unless I'm misreading your series, you get > barrier error Not really, this seems to be working as expected. Assuming that this didn't change since 5.4.0-rc6. I does make sense to me that specifying bool type parameter without any options would express "true". > barrier=0 OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > barrier=42 error > barrier=yes OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > barrier=no OK, sets EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER Those three are different, just because of how param_book() work. I do not really see a problem with it, but if we want to keep it exactly the same as current mainline it would be difficult with how the current api works. Any suggestions ? Thanks! -Lukas > nobarrier OK, clears EXT4_MOUNT_BARRIER > > Granted, mainline behaviour is... unintuitive, to put it mildly, > but the replacement is just as strange _and_ incompatible with the > existing one. > > Am I missing something subtle there? >