Hi Dave,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:45:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> fscrypto: clean up include file mess
>
> From: Dave Chinner <[email protected]>
>
> Filesystems have to include different header files based on whether
> they are compiled with encryption support or not. That's nasty and
> messy.
>
> Instead, rationalise the headers so we have a single include
> fscrypt.h and let it decide what internal implementation to include
> based on the __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION define. Filesystems set
> __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION before including linux/fscrypt.h if they are
> built with encryption support.
>
> Add guards to prevent fscrypt_supp.h and fscrypt_notsupp.h from
> being directly included by filesystems.
This looks good; we probably should have done it that way originally. This will
allow us to have the inline functions like fscrypt_prepare_rename() defined in
fscrypt.h, and then have supp/notsupp versions of __fscrypt_prepare_rename()
instead --- so common checks like for IS_ENCRYPTED() will be in one place only.
One nit:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
> +#define __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION 1
> +#endif
> +#include <linux/fscrypt.h>
How about doing
#define __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION)
(and likewise for f2fs and ubifs), then checking '#if __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION'
rather than '#ifdef __FS_HAS_ENCRYPTION'?
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
