Add exfat in fs/Kconfig and fs/Makefile.
Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>
---
fs/Kconfig | 3 ++-
fs/Makefile | 1 +
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
index 7b623e9fc1b0..5edd87eb5c13 100644
--- a/fs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/Kconfig
@@ -139,9 +139,10 @@ endmenu
endif # BLOCK
if BLOCK
-menu "DOS/FAT/NT Filesystems"
+menu "DOS/FAT/EXFAT/NT Filesystems"
source "fs/fat/Kconfig"
+source "fs/exfat/Kconfig"
source "fs/ntfs/Kconfig"
endmenu
diff --git a/fs/Makefile b/fs/Makefile
index 1148c555c4d3..4358dda56b1e 100644
--- a/fs/Makefile
+++ b/fs/Makefile
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS) += hugetlbfs/
obj-$(CONFIG_CODA_FS) += coda/
obj-$(CONFIG_MINIX_FS) += minix/
obj-$(CONFIG_FAT_FS) += fat/
+obj-$(CONFIG_EXFAT) += exfat/
obj-$(CONFIG_BFS_FS) += bfs/
obj-$(CONFIG_ISO9660_FS) += isofs/
obj-$(CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS) += hfsplus/ # Before hfs to find wrapped HFS+
--
2.17.1
From: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool
Return statements in functions returning bool should use
true/false instead of 1/0.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolreturn.cocci
Fixes: f7c468dc756c ("exfat: add exfat in fs/Kconfig and fs/Makefile")
CC: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
---
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Namjae-Jeon/add-the-latest-exfat-driver/20191122-084735
base: 9942eae47585ee056b140bbfa306f6a1d6b8f383
file.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/exfat/file.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/file.c
@@ -47,11 +47,11 @@ static bool exfat_allow_set_time(struct
if (in_group_p(inode->i_gid))
allow_utime >>= 3;
if (allow_utime & MAY_WRITE)
- return 1;
+ return true;
}
/* use a default check */
- return 0;
+ return false;
}
static int exfat_sanitize_mode(const struct exfat_sb_info *sbi,
Hi Namjae,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on next-20191121]
[also build test WARNING on v5.4-rc8]
[cannot apply to linus/master v5.4-rc8 v5.4-rc7 v5.4-rc6]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Namjae-Jeon/add-the-latest-exfat-driver/20191122-084735
base: 9942eae47585ee056b140bbfa306f6a1d6b8f383
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
coccinelle warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:52:21 +0800, kbuild test robot said:
> From: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
>
> fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool
The warning and fix themselves look OK..
> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
But somehow, this strikes me as fishy.
Or more correctly, it looks reasonable to me, but seems to clash with the
Developer's Certificate of Origin as described in submitting-patches.rst, which
makes the assumption that the patch submitter is a carbon-based life form. In
particular, I doubt the kbuild test robot can understand the thing, and I have
*no* idea who/what ends up owning the GPLv2 copyright on software automatically
created by other software.
Or are we OK on this?
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 09:09:18PM -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:52:21 +0800, kbuild test robot said:
> > From: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> >
> > fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool
>
> The warning and fix themselves look OK..
>
> > Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
>
> But somehow, this strikes me as fishy.
>
> Or more correctly, it looks reasonable to me, but seems to clash with the
> Developer's Certificate of Origin as described in submitting-patches.rst, which
> makes the assumption that the patch submitter is a carbon-based life form. In
> particular, I doubt the kbuild test robot can understand the thing, and I have
> *no* idea who/what ends up owning the GPLv2 copyright on software automatically
> created by other software.
>
> Or are we OK on this?
We are ok with this, it's been happening for years and we talked about
it with lawyers when it first happened. So nothing to really worry
about here.
thanks,
greg k-h