linux-kernel - Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs

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: <CAFLxGvzGEBH2Z+Bpv68OMeLR1JH0pe6bHn6P-sBG+epLTXbR6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:29:44 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> It might make life easier for other kernel developers if "features"
> was named "compat_features" and "requirements" were named
> "incompat_features", just because of the long-standing use of that in
> ext2, ext3, ext4, ocfs2, etc.  But that naming scheme really is a
> legacy of ext2 and its descendents, and there's no real reason why it
> has to be that way on other file systems.

Yes, the naming confused me a little. :-)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard