From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] loop: remember whether sysfs_create_group() succeeded To: Tetsuo Handa , jack@suse.cz, gmazyland@gmail.com Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <3afa1009-c55e-08e2-32b9-49fde1c587c8@kernel.dk> <201805042327.CBF64097.OOVQFtFJFLSHOM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <6bf461ba-4bd0-6709-1605-b0fccd0f105d@kernel.dk> <201805042340.AIB51569.HOFQOJLFtVFSMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201805050114.GDF05771.JVtFOQMLOSFFHO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <2a75e5fb-7f29-d372-b87d-a69820fb750c@kernel.dk> Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 10:27:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201805050114.GDF05771.JVtFOQMLOSFFHO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 5/4/18 10:14 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >>> The loop module ignores sysfs_create_group() failure and pretends that >>> LOOP_SET_FD request succeeded. I guess that the author of commit >>> ee86273062cbb310 ("loop: add some basic read-only sysfs attributes") >>> assumed that it is not a fatal error enough to abort LOOP_SET_FD request. >>> >>> Do we want to abort LOOP_SET_FD request if sysfs_create_group() failed? >> >> Probably safer to retain that behavior. > > OK. > >> >>>> If that's not easily done, then my next suggestion would be to >>>> use a loop flag for it, LO_FLAGS_SYSFS_SETUP or something like that. >>> >>> Yes, that would be possible. >> >> Let's make that change. > > Since LO_FLAGS_* are defined in include/uapi/linux/loop.h as userspace visible > flags, I feel that using "struct loop_device"->lo_flags for recording whether > sysfs entry exists might be strange... Anyway, updated patch is shown below. Hmm yes, I forgot about that, I guess that makes the flags approach pretty much useless. Let's just go with your v1 in that case. -- Jens Axboe