Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 May 2006 10:00:45 -0500 | From | "Michael Thompson" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/13: eCryptfs] Superblock operations |
| |
On 5/4/06, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > Some comments below. > > On 5/4/06, Phillip Hellewell <phillip@hellewell.homeip.net> wrote: > > +kmem_cache_t *ecryptfs_inode_info_cache; > > Please use struct kmem_cache instead of the typedef.
Please explain why. Looking at the source shows that kmem_cache_t is more widely used, and therefore seems to be the prefered way.
> > + ecryptfs_printk(KERN_DEBUG, "Exit\n"); > > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * Set up the ecryptfs inode. > > + */ > > +static void ecryptfs_read_inode(struct inode *inode) > > +{ > > + ecryptfs_printk(KERN_DEBUG, "Enter; inode = [%p]\n", inode); > > + /* This is where we setup the self-reference in the vfs_inode's > > + * u.generic_ip. That way we don't have to walk the list again. */ > > + ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_PRIVATE_SM(inode) = > > + list_entry(inode, struct ecryptfs_inode_info, vfs_inode); > > + ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_LOWER(inode) = NULL; > > Hmm, ugly, please make the setters explicit instead.
Curious, what exactly do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you mean by "setters".
-- Michael C. Thompson <mcthomps@us.ibm.com> Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |