From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-97.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-97.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1520C19992C for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.97 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737114041; cv=none; b=a8++/Iivk1s8cDxS1mTkLqNcQIXK6gE6f8kle47Z+lCSTiKShvDgkhtmQSLrmTIXtHAN5F7rrxsd9maADTfAX7DwTh4jqUBL1uZEvKMjvorIM5n09xTXm8hFG8V5+DBoz7+z9ICd07ZrG78lUzYYM5mqijtbBUL+RuiATjgkfLM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737114041; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9vKJCwaAaRSrRg75PqfaQZvf5ZX1kI44GMx86403fTY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ARa9RuQRxzJ356a0TefoGtRGjmgyYiNI/R60y7Z80k2dVJUWur6z5ZFPddWTC+LGAhcP0Xu2STvZfexLhPqiQHmJfbPsSR6DWlPpbjD3WaOHWGoFnfP45pQkAMqMFRgOF1j3nVEYI/WvjNwrG0UwOAUfMv5vuxq418pYeF9LRCQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=Er08A4VF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.97 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="Er08A4VF" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1737114030; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=+ammakNym+YU7iEzIetTVk753hSn0YiReK9/HCDyrWg=; b=Er08A4VFW11FE/23u8iLAKwkyghioqCjjMhuW7XKJdcn9gRRTRKW+SIRzwg4oGcxBW9ZvtCAFARvEpFjbmA5xhScHqMzRRR9BWDe17Fb5QNQ6+8KspfpETQS9GQeC7XHFHHlZ8u1CZ6LrU1BwIAT1UneKxdVCTHceZ2aILrVaMg= Received: from 30.41.10.74(mailfrom:hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WNoqB9M_1737114022 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:40:29 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:40:21 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] erofs: remove dead code in erofs_fc_parse_param To: Chen Linxuan , Gao Xiang , Chao Yu , Yue Hu , Jeffle Xu , Sandeep Dhavale Cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: From: Gao Xiang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/1/17 18:06, Chen Linxuan wrote: > If an option is unknown to erofs, which means that option is not in > `erofs_fs_parameters`, `fs_parse` will return -ENOPARAM, which makes > `erofs_fc_parse_param` returns earlier. > > Signed-off-by: Chen Linxuan Reviewed-by: Gao Xiang Thanks, Gao Xiang