linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] block: Add bdev_supports

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 May 2016 16:50:44 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	micah.parrish@....com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] block: Add bdev_supports_dax() for dax mount
 checks

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 16:34 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 07:19 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
 :
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch should replace blkdev_dax_capable(), or just reuse
> > > > > that existing routine, or am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Good question.  bdev_supports_dax() is a helper function tailored
> > > > for the filesystem's mount -o dax case.  While blkdev_dax_capable()
> > > > is similar, it does not need error messages like "device does not
> > > > support dax" since it implicitly enables dax when capable.  So, I
> > > > think we can keep blkdev_dax_capable(), but change it to call
> > > > bdev_direct_access() so that actual check is performed in a single
> > > > place.
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > Can you name them consistently then? i.e. blkdev_dax_supported() and
> > blkdev_dax_capable()?
>
> Sure.  Will do.

I will keep the "bdev_" prefix to be consistent with bdev_direct_access(),
i.e. bdev_dax_supported() and bdev_dax_capable().

-Toshi