linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/16] GFS2: The DLM interface module

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, 7 Sep 2006 09:58:23 -0500
From:	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell Cattelan <cattelan@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] GFS2: The DLM interface module

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:05:14PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> >+int gdlm_get_lock(lm_lockspace_t *lockspace, struct lm_lockname *name,
> >+		  lm_lock_t **lockp)
> >+{
> >+	struct gdlm_lock *lp;
> >+	int error;
> >+
> >+	error = gdlm_create_lp((struct gdlm_ls *) lockspace, name, &lp);
> >+
> >+	*lockp = (lm_lock_t *) lp;
> 
> This cast is alright in itself. Considering however that lm_lock_t is
> currently typedef'ed to void, it looks a little different. (One _could_
> get rid of it, but better not while it is called lm_lock_t. Leave as-is
> for now.)

Hi Jan,

I'm wondering what you might suggest instead of using the lm_lockspace_t,
lm_lock_t, lm_fsdata_t typedefs.  These are opaque objects passed between
gfs and the lock modules.  Could you give an example or point to some code
that shows what you're thinking?

Thanks,
Dave

-
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/