On Fri, 2025-01-17 at 17:28 +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Linxuan, > > On 2025/1/17 16:52, Chen Linxuan wrote: > > While reading erofs code, I notice that `erofs_fc_parse_param` will > > return -ENOPARAM, which means that erofs do not support this option, > > without report anything when `fs_parse` return an unknown `opt`. > > > > But if an option is unknown to erofs, I mean that option not in > > `erofs_fs_parameters` at all, `fs_parse` will return -ENOPARAM, > > which means that `erofs_fs_parameters` should has returned earlier. > > > > Entering `default` means `fs_parse` return something we unexpected. > > I am not sure about it but I think we should return -EINVAL here, > > just like `xfs_fs_parse_param`. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Linxuan <chenlinx...@uniontech.com> > > I think the default branch is actually deadcode here, see > erofs_fc_parse_param() -> fs_parse() -> fs_lookup_key() -> -ENOPARAM > > then vfs_parse_fs_param() will show "Unknown parameter". > > Maybe we could just kill `default:` branch...
ext4 do not have a `default:` branch, but xfs return -EINVAL. I think `default:` branch can report error when `fs_parse` or `erofs_fs_parameters` goes wrong. But I am OK to kill `default:` branch. > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > > > > --- > > fs/erofs/super.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c > > index 1fc5623c3a4d..67fc4c1deb98 100644 > > --- a/fs/erofs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c > > @@ -509,7 +509,8 @@ static int erofs_fc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, > > #endif > > break; > > default: > > - return -ENOPARAM; > > + errorfc(fc, "%s option not supported", param->key); > > + return -EINVAL; > > } > > return 0; > > } > > >
