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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:35:22 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <>
To:	Jeff Layton <>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	David Teigland <>,
	Christine Caulfield <>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <>,
	Trond Myklebust <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] fs: dlm: lockd: Convert int result to unsigned char

On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 12:24 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:53:59 -0700 Joe Perches <> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 14:11 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:23:43 -0700 Joe Perches <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists