[PATCH v2] erofs: don't bother with s_stack_depth increasing for now

[Gao Xiang]

Hi Amir,

On 2026/1/8 16:02, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:10 AM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao at linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

...

>>>>
>>>> Hi, Xiang
>>>>
>>>> In Android APEX scenario, apex images formatted as EROFS are packed in
>>>> system.img which is also EROFS format. As a result, it will always fail
>>>> to do APEX-file-backed mount since `inode->i_sb->s_op == &erofs_sops'
>>>> is true.
>>>> Any thoughts to handle such scenario?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I forgot this popular case, I think it can be simply resolved
>>> by the following diff:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
>>> index 0cf41ed7ced8..e93264034b5d 100644
>>> --- a/fs/erofs/super.c
>>> +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
>>> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static int erofs_fc_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
>>>                    */
>>>                   if (erofs_is_fileio_mode(sbi)) {
>>>                           inode = file_inode(sbi->dif0.file);
>>> -                       if (inode->i_sb->s_op == &erofs_sops ||
>>> +                       if ((inode->i_sb->s_op == &erofs_sops && !sb->s_bdev) ||
>>
>> Sorry it should be `!inode->i_sb->s_bdev`, I've
>> fixed it in v3 RESEND:
> 
> A RESEND implies no changes since v3, so this is bad practice.
> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260108030709.3305545-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com
>>
> 
> Ouch! If the erofs maintainer got this condition wrong... twice...
> Maybe better using the helper instead of open coding this non trivial check?
> 
> if ((inode->i_sb->s_op == &erofs_sops &&
>        erofs_is_fileio_mode(EROFS_I_SB(inode)))

I was thought to use that, but it excludes fscache as the
backing fs.. so I suggest to use !s_bdev directly to
cover both file-backed mounts and fscache cases directly.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.