linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Rename make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} to inode_eq

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: <20180131215509.GD28275@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:55:09 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@...ero.it>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@...ind.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} to
 inode_eq_iversion{+raw}

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:43:09PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> The function inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} is counter-intuitive, because it
> returns true when the counters are different and false when these are equal.
> 
> Rename it to inode_eq_iversion{+raw}, which will returns true when
> the counters are equal and false otherwise.

A lot of places use !inode_eq_iversion().  I think we should have both
inode_eq_iversion() and inode_ne_iversion().

Also, we have 'inode' in the name, why keep the 'i'?  inode_eq_version()
and inode_ne_version() are shorter.  We could even go so far as
iversion_eq() and iversion_ne() if keeping 'iversion' in the string
is important.