[PATCH] erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding

[cgxu]

On 5/26/20 5:49 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Chengguang,
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:03:43PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>> Define erofs_listxattr and erofs_xattr_handlers to NULL when
>> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR is not enabled, then we can remove many
>> ugly ifdef macros in the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519 at mykernel.net>
>> ---
>> Only compile tested.
>>
>>   fs/erofs/inode.c | 6 ------
>>   fs/erofs/namei.c | 2 --
>>   fs/erofs/super.c | 4 +---
>>   fs/erofs/xattr.h | 7 ++-----
>>   4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/inode.c b/fs/erofs/inode.c
>> index 3350ab65d892..7dd4bbe9674f 100644
>> --- a/fs/erofs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/erofs/inode.c
>> @@ -311,27 +311,21 @@ int erofs_getattr(const struct path *path, struct kstat *stat,
>>   
>>   const struct inode_operations erofs_generic_iops = {
>>   	.getattr = erofs_getattr,
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR
>>   	.listxattr = erofs_listxattr,
>> -#endif
> 
> It seems equivalent. And it seems ext2 and f2fs behave in the same way...

I posted similar patch for ext2 and Jack merged to
his tree the other day, though that series also
included a real bugfix. I also posted similar patch
to f2fs, so if erofs and f2fs merge these patches
then all three will behave in the same way, ;-)

You may refer below link for the detail.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20200522044035.24190-2-cgxu519@mykernel.net/


> But I'm not sure whether we'd return 0 (if I didn't see fs/xattr.c by mistake)
> or -EOPNOTSUPP here... Some thoughts about this? >
> Anyway, I'm fine with that if return 0 is okay here, but I'd like to know your
> and Chao's thoughts about this... I will play with it later as well.

Originally, we set erofs_listxattr to ->listxattr only
when the config macro CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR is enabled,
it means that erofs_listxattr() never returns -EOPNOTSUPP
in any case, so actually there is no logic change here,
right?


Thanks,
cgxu