From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from submarine.notk.org (submarine.notk.org [62.210.214.84]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D460D2C15AC; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.210.214.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753964716; cv=none; b=FtQPVSxXFCt+nFrCAy726O346z7Li4jdb6oUTmVAtTF5nE0fPypNVzYRmtxkj8d0L2Um2cDOeQLERujKw7V7Bze99mKUC+MddzGl5yWYxtKDDV7C5vUxn/iQRhGD21z/vAFubeSrSIgvEtz1/vhGm72pbCBJSVgREJ/0Zw7JRMU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753964716; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K9yrhTsnhyVrEmPO39ozdocHN8115ue4s/EKisz0M38=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lExuS95NDR3ShcQTcw959m/n1Rk2GWrvQDLrvv7XTuyrR8nYV8IedU5s8G17cwJ/YYb6uqa0VqCocNMx/LTwGBH2zjPoW8drHxWbeR+z/DpkzakbmsFt0edH01Xs0sJHTIo41Q85rfdJp6o8Cu/0WOtgY8NfqMIZvYMzngjitVI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codewreck.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codewreck.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codewreck.org header.i=@codewreck.org header.b=PaBbkIKN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.210.214.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codewreck.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codewreck.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codewreck.org header.i=@codewreck.org header.b="PaBbkIKN" Received: from gaia.codewreck.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submarine.notk.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED9D14C2D3; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 14:25:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codewreck.org; s=2; t=1753964711; 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=lKMAQygJDNslq3XHuJ3zmDHFxLSUSF2cjx8vbtFuTOA=; b=PaBbkIKNmjfRY/xR1aXFkbUUEnpFJPKc53y/b1vbtXvGbz1xJCUA0TCflNxPLwu9kIC4Tq GoH+E6KU372mKJlG/GG8yfyyE/nyoojDIylDHymzaio4hyr4TZjNwBI+Sdw+oVpc4LvxMP 3eqVBLVKfl5RuCJ/V6iurLX5mlMJND0B7MmGNt0oHU9CjMu+4apZqUSvUxHl2gMjswS5DX P3Yl7JW9yRdNP4Zj8RuVeWQuaU80p1z1iToMzwvi6Yz/wwnxYDQh8RRgwZe+zgedk+KWgg PZjCfatj5s0NiH8zJfZGYHdtPuvtHl6IUN72hhBN0d1ZIHJMmXCGOTH2gL6aKw== Received: from localhost (gaia.codewreck.org [local]) by gaia.codewreck.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 891bc4a8; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 21:24:52 +0900 From: asmadeus@codewreck.org To: Eric Sandeen Cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ericvh@kernel.org, lucho@ionkov.net, linux_oss@crudebyte.com, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] 9p: convert to the new mount API Message-ID: References: <20250730192511.2161333-1-sandeen@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Eric Sandeen wrote on Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 08:38:17PM -0500: > > I think the main contention point here is that we're moving some opaque > > logic that was in each transport into the common code, so e.g. an out of > > tree transport can no longer have its own options (not that I'm aware of > > such a transport existing anyway, so we probably don't have to worry > > about this) > > I had not thought about out of tree transports. And I was a little unsure > about moving everything into fs/9p/* but I'm not sure I saw any other way > to do it in the new framework. @dhowells? I've had a quick look as well and I don't see either -- parameters are parsed one at a time so we can't do the two passes needed to first get the transport out of the arguments and then instantiate a transport and parse again. I really think it's fine in practice, just something to remember. > > OTOH this is also a blessing because 9p used to silently ignore unknown > > options, and will now properly refuse them (although it'd still silently > > ignore e.g. rdma options being set for a virtio mount -- I guess there's > > little harm in that as long as typos are caught?) > > Well, that might be considered a regression. Such conversions have burned > us before, so if you want, it might be possible to keep the old more > permissive behavior ... I'd have to look, not sure. >From my understanding we just need to make v9fs_parse_param return 0 instead of 'opt' if fs_parse() < 0, but I think it's fine to error on unknown options (more in line with other filesystems at least) We can reconsider this and make it a non-error when or if someone complains about it. -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus