linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzsgr6ZHWxNRvM3VZu=bWn75TfGb0EAXO1wdFnBFTCz-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 May 2013 12:16:22 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Because renaming really doesn't buy us anything but pain.
>
> Umm...  I'd rather go the whole way and get rid of inode argument as well,
> while we are at it.  It's completely redundant and it's unused in very large
> majority of the instances.

So? What's the advantage of removing it?

Also, "->close()" would be *exactly* the wrong name to call this,
since it would be absolutely and utterly misleading. "->release()" is
_not_ about close, and in fact the whole return code is partially due
to people thinking it is. It's "->flush()" that gets called at close
time.

               Linus
--
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/