linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP

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: <SN4PR0401MB3598973510611B1732B5B04B9B1E0@SN4PR0401MB3598.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:32:52 +0000
From:   Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To:     苏辉 <sh_def@....com>
CC:     "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk: use REQ_OP_WRITE instead of hard code

On 19/10/2020 16:30, 苏辉 wrote:
> Yeah, you are right, thanks for your explanation<br/><br/>Maybe we should define a MASK to do this?

Why? I personally find a '& 1' way more understandable than a 
REQ_OP_IS_WRITE_MASK or sth like that. The former I can just read,
for the latter I would need to look up the definition to be able to
understand the code.