linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set

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: <20100513174047.GX25951@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 13 May 2010 19:40:48 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>, jeff@...zik.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ben@...adent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set_capacity()

On Thu, May 13 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 05/13/2010 06:06 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is such a good interface ... it sounds very error
> > prone for what is effectively a binary lock/unlock.
> 
> Well, the original block interface was like that.  It has been used as
> binary switch tho.  The requested capacity is always ~0ULL and return
> value smaller than the current capacity is ignored.  I'm all for
> dropping the capacity parameter and the return value from
> ->set_capacity() so that it just unlocks native capacity and directly
> sets the new capacity.  Jens?

Is there a valid case for setting the capacity less than the unlocked
capacity? I would think the unlock/lock bool api is saner.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/