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: <878w8q5zg1.fsf@openvz.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:18:54 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] blkdev: pass gfp_mask and flags to blkdev_issue_flush

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

>> +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.
I need both bit_num(used inside function) and flag (1<<bit_num)
which is used by function caller.
No problem, i'll change it whenever you like
do you like following?
enum{
	IFN_BLKDEV_WAIT,	/* wait for completion */
	IFN_BLKDEV_BARRIER,	/*issue request with barrier */
};
#define BLKDEV_WAIT		(1 << IFN_BLKDEV_WAIT)
#define BLKDEV_BARRIER		(1 << IFN_BLKDEV_BARRIER)
--
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/