linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] blkdev: pass gfp_mask and flags to blkdev_issue

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]

Message-ID: <20100413181023.GB1483@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:10:23 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] blkdev: pass gfp_mask and flags to
	blkdev_issue_flush

> +enum{
> +	__BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT,	/* wait for completion */
> +	__BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER,	/*issue request with barrier */
> +};
> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT		(1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT)
> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER	(1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER)

This is a very awkward stayle to define flags.  There really should
be no need for the __-prefixed version.  While you're using them for
test/set_bit and co there's no reason to use these atomic bitops here.

--
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/