| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <x491w3398dm.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:41 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 7] block: bio data integrity support "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> writes: >>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes: > Jeff> Hmm, up until this point you use bi to mean bio_integrity, but > Jeff> now it means blk_integrity. Confusion will ensue. ;) > > Err, uhm. There is no bio_integrity. There's the bio integrity > payload which I always refer to as struct bip *bip. And struct > blk_integrity which is always bi. I'm also anal about using bv for > the data bio_vec and iv for the integrity bio_vec. I can't see any > place where I'm inconsistent. Wow, I have no idea where I got that impression. Sorry! > Jeff> struct blk_integrity_exchg is not yet defined in your patch set, > Jeff> so this will likely break git bisect. > > bio-integrity.patch and blk-integrity.patch are artificially split up > to ease the review process. They are not meant to be separate > changesets. OK, just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Cheers, Jeff -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists