On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:26:54PM +0800, anand jain wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> All comments accepted thanks. except for this.
>
>
> >>+_mount_dmerror()
> >>+{
> >>+ $MOUNT_PROG -t $FSTYP $MOUNT_OPTIONS $DMERROR_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
> >>+}
> >
> >Should mirror _scratch_mount.
> >
> >_mount -t $FSTYP `_scratch_mount_options` $DMERROR_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
>
>
> `_scratch_mount_options` also returns $SCRATCH_DEV.
> in case of tests involving dmerror module, dmerror_init would use
> $SCRATCH_DEV as backing device and provide $DMERROR_DEV to be used
> instead of $SCRATCH_DEV. So I am proposing..
>
> + _mount -t $FSTYP $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $MOUNT_OPTIONS
> $SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS $* $DMERROR_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
Ok, SCRATCH_OPTIONS might not be the best idea here, so feel free to
drop it.
However, you've still missed the primary reason I suggested
_scratch_mount_options in the first place: what do we do instead of
copy'n'paste of random code fragments?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
