On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 15:48 +0100, Joel Reardon wrote: > > + __u8 padding0[8]; /* Watch 'zero_dent_node_unused()' if changing! */ > > Also please, be consistent with overall UBIFS coding style and comment > fields at the structure header comment, not near the field itself. > I actually just copied this comment from the comment following padding1 and padding2; should they all just be omitted? As for the ubifs being mounted with the old, it may be best to increase the version format number. The old version won't be able to 'read' (i.e., decrypt) the data, while the new version has a switch to enable both modes. If new data is written by the old version then the new version will also have trouble to read it (unless we set crypto_lookup==0 to mean no key). But its probably for the best to just let older version mount the security enhanced one as read-only using the version format as the data will be anyhow unreadable. Non-security-enhanced ubifs (but aware) partitions can set the version format to the older value as they will be compatible. cheers, Joel Reardon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
