linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 May 2010 20:25:39 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>, jeff@...zik.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ben@...adent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set_capacity()

Hello,

On 05/13/2010 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Is there a valid case for setting the capacity less than the unlocked
> capacity? I would think the unlock/lock bool api is saner.

IDE currently is the only user (and probably has been that way the
whole time), so it is a binary thing.  I have no idea why the original
interface was designed that way.  Looks like it tried to be too
generic.  Anyways, for the task at hand, the following should be
enough.

	void (*unlock_native_capacity)(void);

This simple signalling is how the current interface is being used
anyway.  If nobody objects, I'll replace ->set_capacity() with the
above.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/