linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH blktests v2 02/11] common/xfs: Create common helper to check for XFS support

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: <BYAPR04MB4965E6FFC184E347DDB78A29860A0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 00:58:23 +0000
From:   Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
CC:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 02/11] common/xfs: Create common helper to
 check for XFS support

On 10/6/20 16:51, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> _have_xfs() does return true/false and can be used with && or in a
> conditional.
>
> Per [1], my opinion is that using && in the requires() function where
> the return value is ignored is confusing so I prefer not to do it in new
> code.
>
> If we want to reconsider this we, should add a check to ensure the
> return value of requires() matches the expectation of the global
> variable it uses.
>
> Logan
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/92478e6f-622a-a1ae-6189-4009f9a307bc@deltatee.com/

Make sense to me, lets not change this, thanks for pointing that out.