On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 10:58 -0600, Greg Joyce wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:12 -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 09:29:36 -0600, Greg Joyce wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 22:46 -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > > > Perhaps naming it `OPAL_MAX_KEY_LEN` would help clarify this?
> > >
> > > I'm not averse to changing it because it would be clearer. My
> > > concern
> > > is that it's been OPAL_KEY_MAX for 5+ years (the original SED
> > > Opal
> > > commit). Unless there is strong consensus to change it, I'm going
> > > to
> > > leave it as the original name.
> >
> > I don't care about the name (very much in the peanut gallery), just
> > it
> > not being a magic number :) .
> >
> > --Ben
>
> Now I get you! I think that you mean changing to this:
>
> if (ret > 0) {
> if (ret > sizeof(key->key_len)) {
> ret = -ENOSPC;
> goto error;
> }
> key->key_len = ret;
> key->key_type = OPAL_INCLUDED;
> }
Sorry, that's incorrect. I think that you just meant removing the 255.
