On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:44:46 +0200
Daniel Golle <dan...@makrotopia.org> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <dan...@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.
>
> #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.
> +
> +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.
> +#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.
I hope you understand why this patch is not acceptable.
> }
>
> if (initrd_load())
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
