From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754983AbeDPLiB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:38:01 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:55431 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbeDPLiA (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:38:00 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 2/2] fs/9p: detecting invalid options as much as possible From: cgxu519@gmx.com In-Reply-To: <20180416075641.GA16402@nautica> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:37:32 +0800 Cc: "cgxu519@gmx.com" , ericvh@gmail.com, rminnich@sandia.gov, lucho@ionkov.net, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <923F6291-1E42-42DF-9312-5720050037E3@gmx.com> References: <1523864909-4337-1-git-send-email-cgxu519@gmx.com> <1523864909-4337-2-git-send-email-cgxu519@gmx.com> <20180416075641.GA16402@nautica> To: Dominique Martinet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:rkbSZH1auPtAf8cVegGhzETJPQaakggWr8D9wbr8ei14pvUbryU KKMLspiSBQPQTJdRFwwen23Os0jEzYMB7Kzd9SAzUNujUOZgYXGUM5QzycFUmLJM9lwmZX2 VN+cTuWWrX5AzL/DiP/ZyVEJVwAOvRMb1A2HDhYF/AvacXKb4d15M1PXrZ7HTvtr+ppmvf/ /tEcPcZUh3SEhy3U6xDJA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:qhhNkArSkJw=:hgv1KDkg2oscSaoVLuA8wP evLa3svcvcpAK1jZtMI6/ImeyVSVghKqSJjlCXzJha8bgTsml8Ci6YMdTh8w137TADn0mVCae MtJtzNrvosnH9Z9nrakyPuVZabqY1su7q9nqEBPgZzi3BLoOytqLP9itEZURbHXdcptPkmDJn VUULneD4RqWW0w7NKh/HgshSSsPeN31x45wGtHbl8h3qmWaemV2x7OcfAqVzYGRZtbilPuI92 8exDTJnxzypyOt4IxPfxmY166ONxXIfd/YpdjcpgwPwwO8nUHCIoWRfjASghDPNCvcFIpLGOC 32XakzMkoomF80SfUsa5npnP7iT9xh9uDJux7CKtdoy19cnz6S9cqtOa7gx80FW0INAMO6OCV LqGzjAdZtyIcKnpAGTLBpVx4YhDYHe4uMbcgyjOEBf58AAhph1vuXHELqQ0YlWljgR/8MsEYV huWF3/s1OJPElzQYnpPjPj0QyRhbGGrAmJLXAtg+qtvepk7nQiNb79h+2IeFEPxbWpRNbHWM8 bN7Q0HwkyytxEcnnWWjXUTAoKONKlWFZiVEcHilh4Q9rhMlztWNJXzKkKePwpxDeI+f0VGosx fpLiLe+VmoMYKMjwioaMNYj2WVP4bP7exZHut4tR7c0NTWBqR+qXhXsqrA8w0emWwOuW8yxBG FrDiKZTiwg+IWE+uyGF5kw7bE7Z1XE6ckviHMxcjKHuVuRoM/OtXHxZ3sCpUezDMT/4IplRjj oo2rb/TK7IrbcuMU6GrqVRb50IUi91iug2bTw45ZM8Fez9m9tEObp2C4ZABjDLbL7gm7oplSg uUpW5ROLMqUmwlhG93gKe0O/nw3tjFDOCClcxBY2OMwrBJ6cAE= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dominique, Thanks for your quick reply and comment. 在 2018年4月16日，下午3:56，Dominique Martinet 写道： > > Chengguang Xu wrote on Mon, Apr 16, 2018: >> default: >> + p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_ERROR, >> + "unrecognized mount option \"%s\" or missing value\n", >> + p); >> continue; > > The problem with that is that the same options are passed to the vfs, > net and transport init later on - none of which know the full subset of > valid options to tell what option has been recognized or not. > > Unless we do some backward-incompatible breakage of passing all the > net/transport options in its own option (e.g. net=foo:bar:moo) there > unfortunately is no nice way of fixing this now. Yes, I agree with you. > > > (I don't mind the rest of the patches, although I'd say if we hit ENOMEM > there is likely trouble going on so I'm not so sure about hiding it if > there also is an EINVAL, but I don't really care) The initial motivation of hiding ENOMEM here is when reproducing the error， the error code may change by system condition(more accurately memory condition), after this patch the error code will be persistent. However, as you pointed out, when we hit ENOMEM there would be a serious trouble, so in real life maybe we cannot benefit from it. What do you think? Thanks, Chengguang.