linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] iomap: Change calling convention for zeroing

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:39:49 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] iomap: Change calling convention for zeroing

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:23:55PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Sorry for my ultra-slow response to this.  The u64 length seems ok to me
> (or uint64_t, I don't care all /that/ much), but using loff_t as a
> return type bothers me because I see that and think that this function
> is returning a new file offset, e.g. (pos + number of bytes zeroed).
> 
> So please, let's use s64 or something that isn't so misleading.
> 
> FWIW, Linus also[0] doesn't[1] like using loff_t for the number of bytes
> copied.

Let's just switch to u64 and s64 then.  Unless we want to come up with
our own typedefs.