On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:51:54 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > > If others feel strongly about this, I don't mind changing it as > > Christoph suggests but > > - to samba people, "incrementing the rfc1001 length" would be more > > recognizable (than opencoding the be32_add_cpu macro), and the > > function name was > > actually Jeff's suggestion which I liked. > > I don't mind the rfc1001 length per se. What's totally braindead about > this is having an absolutely trivial wrapper for incrementing a field, > which has a different name than the field it increments. > > If you feel strongly about the rfc1001 length just rename the field. > FWIW, the MS-SMB doc calls this value the "Stream Protocol Length". It also mentions that this is actually a 24 bit field and the upper 8 bits are supposed to be zeroed out. Should this wrapper check for values that violate that? A little defensive coding in this area wouldn't hurt. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
