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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:35:22 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>, Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>, cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] fs: dlm: lockd: Convert int result to unsigned char type On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 12:24 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:53:59 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 14:11 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:23:43 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > > > op->info.rv is an s32, but it's only used as a u8. > > > I don't understand this patch. info.rv is s32 (and I assume that "rv" > > > stands for "return value"). > > > > In this case it's not a return value but an input. [] > Well, it's an input into the lm_grant callback, but it originally comes > in the downcall from userland (AFAICT). In this case, I'm referring to [] > It's been a while since I've looked over the lockd code, but I believe > it's just a flag that indicates whether there is still a conflict > between the block and the lock on the file. Yes, that is how it is used. > I don't think that patch will break anything. I just don't see it as an > improvement on what's already there. > > The rationale for this is lost in antiquity, but I think the basic idea > was that you're either granting or updating the block based on the > _result_ from some check for a lock conflict. While "result" as a name > is a little confusing, "type" is even more so, IMO. > > If you're hell-bent on changing this, then my suggestion would be > to turn it into a bool and call it "conflict" or something similar. If > you do decide to do that, adding some helpful kerneldoc comments would > be a nice improvement too. I hope I'm never hell-bent on patches. I do prefer easier to read, clear code and I agree that using it as a bool would make the code better. I'll see about kernel-doc changes too. cheers, Joe -- 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