From: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
lede-dev@lists.infradead.org, Zoltan HERPAI <wigyori@uid0.hu>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@gmail.com>,
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] init: auto-create ubiblock device for non-UBIFS rootfs on UBI
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:22:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160828212216.GB2528@makrotopia.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160828185415.20d3b34b@bbrezillon>
Hi Boris,
thanks for the review! This is more helpful and more of the type of
feedback I was hoping for.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 06:54:15PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:44:46 +0200
> Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org> wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
> > ---
> > init/do_mounts.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c b/init/do_mounts.c
> > index dea5de9..485df12 100644
> > --- a/init/do_mounts.c
> > +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/ramfs.h>
> > #include <linux/shmem_fs.h>
> > +#include <linux/mtd/ubi.h>
>
> Really??? You include UBI stuff in generic kernel code? Come on. Linux
> is defining clear interfaces to be implemented by drivers/FS for a good
> reason: the core code should be implementation agnostic, and you're
> just breaking this rule.
The whole thing could be moved to a new file (similar as done for other
things for specific subsystems, like do_mounts_md.c).
>
> >
> > #include <linux/nfs_fs.h>
> > #include <linux/nfs_fs_sb.h>
> > @@ -179,6 +180,47 @@ done:
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BLOCK) && !defined(CONFIG_MTD_UBI_MODULE)
> > +#define UBIFS_NODE_MAGIC 0x06101831
> > +static inline int ubi_vol_is_ubifs(struct ubi_volume_desc *desc)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + uint32_t magic_of, magic;
> > + ret = ubi_read(desc, 0, (char *)&magic_of, 0, 4);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return 0;
> > + magic = le32_to_cpu(magic_of);
> > + return magic == UBIFS_NODE_MAGIC;
> > +}
>
> This is even worst. Now your parsing data within a specific volume to
> determine if the volume is likely to contain a UBIFS FS. And all that
> is done in core kernel code.
I was unsure, however, maybe ubiblock should generally refuse to create
a ubiblock device if an UBIFS signature is found...?
In that case, this function and the logic using it below could be moved
to driver/mtd/ubi/block.c
>
> > +
> > +static void ubiblock_create_rootdev(char *name)
> > +{
> > + int ret, is_ubifs;
> > + struct ubi_volume_desc *desc;
> > + struct ubi_volume_info vi;
> > + dev_t bdev;
> > +
> > + desc = ubi_open_volume_str(name, UBI_READONLY);
> > + if (IS_ERR(desc))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + ubi_get_volume_info(desc, &vi);
> > +
> > + is_ubifs = ubi_vol_is_ubifs(desc);
> > + ubi_close_volume(desc);
> > +
> > + if (is_ubifs)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + ret = ubiblock_create_dev(&vi, &bdev);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + pr_notice("ubiblock%u_%u: '%s' set to be root filesystem\n",
> > + vi.ubi_num, vi.vol_id, vi.name);
> > + ROOT_DEV = bdev;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> And it continues here. Now you're automatically creating a ubiblock
> device based on the UBIFS detection, and again, this is in core kernel
> code.
This, again, could go into a file of it's own like
init/do_mounts_ubiblock.c
which is just how it's done for ramdisk and mdraid stuff.
>
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * Convert a name into device number. We accept the following variants:
> > *
> > @@ -569,14 +611,20 @@ void __init prepare_namespace(void)
> >
> > if (saved_root_name[0]) {
> > root_device_name = saved_root_name;
> > - if (!strncmp(root_device_name, "mtd", 3) ||
> > - !strncmp(root_device_name, "ubi", 3)) {
> > - mount_block_root(root_device_name, root_mountflags);
> > - goto out;
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BLOCK) && !defined(CONFIG_MTD_UBI_MODULE)
> > + if (!strncmp(root_device_name, "ubi", 3))
> > + ubiblock_create_rootdev(root_device_name);
> > +#endif
> > + if (ROOT_DEV == 0) {
> > + if (!strncmp(root_device_name, "mtd", 3) ||
> > + !strncmp(root_device_name, "ubi", 3)) {
> > + mount_block_root(root_device_name, root_mountflags);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(root_device_name);
> > + if (strncmp(root_device_name, "/dev/", 5) == 0)
> > + root_device_name += 5;
> > }
> > - ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(root_device_name);
> > - if (strncmp(root_device_name, "/dev/", 5) == 0)
> > - root_device_name += 5;
>
> And the last piece: you're making use of all the hacks you've
> introduced earlier to create your blockdevice and pass it to the 'mount
> blockdev FS' logic.
This is what is done for all sorts of block devices in that function...
What's wrong with that approach?
>
> I hope you understand why this patch is not acceptable.
I surely do, it was sent in the intention to start a discussion and
collect comments, not with the intention to have it merged at this
stage. I thus really appreciate your detailed review, though I'm aware
that you are opposed to the whole idea of automagically creating the
ubiblock device and thereby allowing to unify the rootfs= cmdline
syntax to be agnostic to the filesystem-type used.
Well, thank you anyway.
Cheers
Daniel
>
> > }
> >
> > if (initrd_load())
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-28 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-27 19:44 [PATCH 3/3] init: auto-create ubiblock device for non-UBIFS rootfs on UBI Daniel Golle
2016-08-28 16:54 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-08-28 21:22 ` Daniel Golle [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160828212216.GB2528@makrotopia.org \
--to=daniel@makrotopia.org \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=hauke@hauke-m.de \
--cc=lede-dev@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org \
--cc=ralph.sennhauser@gmail.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=wigyori@uid0.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox