[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ynvv6nf5rWmKItSL@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:18:34 +0000
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when
supported
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:20:23PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > +static int ext4_check_test_dummy_encryption(const struct fs_context *fc,
> > + struct super_block *sb)
>
> Maybe the function name should match with other option checking, like
> ext4_check_test_dummy_encryption_consistency() similar to
> ext4_check_quota_consistency(). This makes it clear that both are residents of
> ext4_check_opt_consistency()
>
> One can argue it makes the function name quite long. So I don't have hard
> objections anyways.
>
> So either ways, feel free to add -
>
> Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
I did consider that, but that name seemed too long, as you mentioned.
Thanks for the review!
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists