On Fri, 2025-01-17 at 17:54 +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > On 2025/1/17 17:50, Chen Linxuan wrote: > > 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. > > How can it go wrong?
What if we forget to update the switch branch for a new option? > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >
