On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 03:26:16PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > static sector_t ecryptfs_bmap(struct address_space *mapping, sector_t block)
> > {
> > + sector_t blk_map = 0;
> > + int ret;
> > struct inode *inode;
> > struct inode *lower_inode;
> >
> > inode = (struct inode *)mapping->host;
> > lower_inode = ecryptfs_inode_to_lower(inode);
> > +
> > + ret = bmap(lower_inode, &blk_map);
> > +
> > + return !ret ? blk_map : 0;
>
> This could be simplified to:
>
> static sector_t ecryptfs_bmap(struct address_space *mapping, sector_t block)
> {
> struct inode *lower_inode = ecryptfs_inode_to_lower(mapping->host);
> int ret = bmap(lower_inode, &block);
>
> if (ret)
> return 0;
> return block;
> }
I can change, without problem.
>
> But the idea that we even support ->bmap on ecryptfs sounds way too
> dangerous.
I can't argue here, I don't know much about ecryptfs, I just replaced the ->bmap
call keeping the same logic, but thanks a lot for the review, I'll update it and
send a V2
--
Carlos
