[PATCH v1 07/23] erofs: add nodev mode

JeffleXu jefflexu at linux.alibaba.com
Wed Jan 5 20:04:19 AEDT 2022

On 1/4/22 10:58 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 10:33:26PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 08:54:28PM +0800, Jeffle Xu wrote:
>>> Until then erofs is exactly blockdev based filesystem. In other using
>>> scenarios (e.g. container image), erofs needs to run upon files.
>>> This patch introduces a new nodev mode, in which erofs could be mounted
>>> from a bootstrap blob file containing the complete erofs image.
>>> The following patch will introduce a new mount option "uuid", by which
>>> users could specify the bootstrap blob file.
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffle Xu <jefflexu at linux.alibaba.com>
>> I think the order of some patches in this patchset can be improved.
>> Take this patch as an example. This patch introduces a new mount
>> option called "uuid", so the kernel will just accept it (which
>> generates a user-visible impact) after this patch but it doesn't
>> actually work.
>> Therefore, we actually have three different behaviors here:
>>  - kernel doesn't support "uuid" mount option completely;
>>  - kernel support "uuid" but it doesn't work;
>>  - kernel support "uuid" correctly (maybe after some random patch);
>> Actually that is bad for bisecting since there are some commits
>> having temporary behaviors. And we don't know which commit
>> actually fully implements this "uuid" mount option.
>> So personally I think the proper order is just like the bottom-up
>> approach, and make sure each patch can be tested / bisected
>> independently.
> Oh, I may misread this patch, but I still think we'd better to
> avoid dead paths "TODO" like this as much as possible.
> Just do in the bottom-up way.

OK, it is better to be put at the latter part of the whole patch set.
Would be fixed in the next version. Thanks.


More information about the Linux-erofs mailing list