On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 01:25:12PM -0800, Satya Tangirala wrote: > I think it does make some sense at least to make the keyslot type opaque > to most of the system other than the driver itself (the driver will now > have to call a function like blk_ksm_slot_idx_for_keyslot to actually get > a keyslot number at the end of the day). Also this way, the keyslot manager > can verify that the keyslot passed to blk_ksm_put_slot is actually part of > that keyslot manager (and that somebody isn't releasing a slot number that > was actually acquired from a different keyslot manager). I don't think > it's much benefit or loss either way, but I already switched to passing > pointers to struct keyslot around instead of ints, so I'll keep it that > way unless you strongly feel that using ints in this case is better > than struct keyslot *. Exactly. This provides a little type safety.
