linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] filelock: add stubs for new functions when CONFIG_FILE

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]

Message-ID: <20240205-prall-herde-c413a323b54c@brauner>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:10:28 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] filelock: add stubs for new functions when
 CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n

> Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
> better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
> That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
> with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
> consensus.

If it's just a rename then just point me to a branch I can pull. I don't
think it's worth resending just because you effectively did some variant
of s/lock_*/filelock_*/g

In any case, folded this one.