On 16/04/2021 05:05, Damien Le Moal wrote: [...] > + CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, /* IV calculation does not use sectors */ [...] > - if (ivmode == NULL) > + if (ivmode == NULL) { > cc->iv_gen_ops = NULL; > - else if (strcmp(ivmode, "plain") == 0) > + set_bit(CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags); > + } else if (strcmp(ivmode, "plain") == 0) [...] > + if (!test_bit(CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags)) { > + DMWARN("Zone append is not supported with sector-based IV cyphers"); > + ti->zone_append_not_supported = true; > + } I think this negation is hard to follow, at least I had a hard time reviewing it. Wouldn't it make more sense to use CRYPT_IV_USE_SECTORS, set the bit for algorithms that use sectors as IV (like plain64) and then do a normal if (test_bit(CRYPT_IV_USE_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags)) { DMWARN("Zone append is not supported with sector-based IV cyphers"); ti->zone_append_not_supported = true; } i.e. without the double negation? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel