ahrens commented on this pull request.
> @@ -409,6 +489,26 @@ _NOTE(CONSTCOND) } while (0) #define BP_GET_LEVEL(bp) BF64_GET((bp)->blk_prop, 56, 5) #define BP_SET_LEVEL(bp, x) BF64_SET((bp)->blk_prop, 56, 5, x) +/* encrypted, authenticated, and MAC cksum bps use the same bit */ +#define BP_USES_CRYPT(bp) BF64_GET((bp)->blk_prop, 61, 1) +#define BP_SET_CRYPT(bp, x) BF64_SET((bp)->blk_prop, 61, 1, x) + +#define BP_IS_ENCRYPTED(bp) \ + (BP_USES_CRYPT(bp) && \ + BP_GET_LEVEL(bp) == 0 && \ The ZoL version has `<= 0`. That said, I think that BP_GET_LEVEL() will result in an unsigned value, so it can never be <0. And the BP_GET_LEVEL() is never negative-ish (`ZB_ZIL_LEVEL` and `ZB_ROOT_LEVEL` are not used here, those block types have BP_GET_LEVEL()==0). So I think we should change ZoL to use `==` here, @tcaputi. > @@ -409,6 +489,26 @@ _NOTE(CONSTCOND) } while (0) #define BP_GET_LEVEL(bp) BF64_GET((bp)->blk_prop, 56, 5) #define BP_SET_LEVEL(bp, x) BF64_SET((bp)->blk_prop, 56, 5, x) +/* encrypted, authenticated, and MAC cksum bps use the same bit */ +#define BP_USES_CRYPT(bp) BF64_GET((bp)->blk_prop, 61, 1) +#define BP_SET_CRYPT(bp, x) BF64_SET((bp)->blk_prop, 61, 1, x) + +#define BP_IS_ENCRYPTED(bp) \ + (BP_USES_CRYPT(bp) && \ + BP_GET_LEVEL(bp) == 0 && \ + DMU_OT_IS_ENCRYPTED(BP_GET_TYPE(bp))) + +#define BP_IS_AUTHENTICATED(bp) \ + (BP_USES_CRYPT(bp) && \ + BP_GET_LEVEL(bp) <= 0 && \ I think we should also change this to `==` (here and in ZoL, @tcaputi) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/489#pullrequestreview-109527189 ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T91797982fdd5b7d9-Mc4c72b4ee296249d833a672b Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
