On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:36:42PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 08:30:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 04:53:01PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote: > > > Not the whole folio always need to be verified by fs-verity (e.g. > > > with 1k blocks). Use passed folio's offset and size. > > > > Why can't those callers just call fsverity_verify_blocks directly? > > > > They can. Calling _verify_folio with explicit offset; size appeared > more clear to me. But I'm ok with dropping this patch to have full > folio verify function. Well, there is no point in a wrapper if it has the exact same signature and functionality as the functionality being wrapped. That being said, right now fsverity_verify_folio, so it might make sense to either rename it, or rename fsverity_verify_blocks to fsverity_verify_folio. But that's really a question for Eric.
