Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs/super.c: introduce get_tree_bdev_flags()

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:54:12PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On 2024/10/10 17:48, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:31:50 +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > As Allison reported [1], currently get_tree_bdev() will store
> > > "Can't lookup blockdev" error message.  Although it makes sense for
> > > pure bdev-based fses, this message may mislead users who try to use
> > > EROFS file-backed mounts since get_tree_nodev() is used as a fallback
> > > then.
> > > 
> > > Add get_tree_bdev_flags() to specify extensible flags [2] and
> > > GET_TREE_BDEV_QUIET_LOOKUP to silence "Can't lookup blockdev" message
> > > since it's misleading to EROFS file-backed mounts now.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied to the vfs.misc branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree.
> > Patches in the vfs.misc branch should appear in linux-next soon.
> > 
> > Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a
> > new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it.
> > 
> > It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the
> > patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated.
> > 
> > Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase,
> > trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch.
> > 
> > tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git
> > branch: vfs.misc
> > 
> > [1/2] fs/super.c: introduce get_tree_bdev_flags()
> >        https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/f54acb32dff2
> > [2/2] erofs: use get_tree_bdev_flags() to avoid misleading messages
> >        https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/83e6e973d9c9
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure what's your thoughts about this, so I try to
> write an email again.
> 
> As Allison suggested in the email [1], "..so probably it should get
> fixed before the final release.".  Although I'm pretty fine to leave
> it in "vfs.misc" for the next merge window (6.13) instead, it could
> cause an unnecessary backport to the stable kernel.

Oh, the file changes have been merged during the v6.12 merge window?
Sorry, that wasn't clear.

Well, this is a bit annoying but yes, we can get that fixed upstream
then. I'll move it to vfs.fixes...