linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the xfs tree

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]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gTcVL0cWy_uB3MRa4BH+4Tz8uoCvkqBxt-BxxFkWOUdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 20:37:59 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the xfs tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Darrick,
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:59:48 -0700 "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +   if (!dax_enabled) {
>> >  -          pr_debug("VFS (%s): error: dax support not enabled\n",
>> >  -                          sb->s_id);
>> >  +          pr_debug("%s: error: dax support not enabled\n",
>> >  +                          bdevname(bdev, buf));
>> > -           return false;
>> > +           return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> Hang on a sec, the changes in the xfs tree make this function return a
>> boolean (true for dax-is-supported, false for dax-not-supported), but
>> this change partially reverts the boolean return values.
>
> OK, weird, that is what I though I had done.  Thanks for pointing it
> out (I guess it was getting late :-().
>
>> >     }
>> > -
>> > -   return true;
>> > +   return 0;

Good catch Darrick, I missed that too...