linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64

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:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:46:41 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool
 instead of s64

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Do you mind just taking it directly? I don't have anything else queued
> up for this cycle.

Done.

I wonder if "false for same, true for different" calling convention
makes much sense, but it matches the old "0 for same" so obviously
makes for a smaller diff.

If it ever ends up confusing people, maybe the sense of that function
should be reversed, and the name changed to something like
"same_inode_version()" or something.

But at least for now the situation seems ok to me,

            Linus