Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:31:18 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@qti.qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] block: Keyslot Manager for Inline Encryption
Message-ID: <20200221173118.GA30670@infradead.org>
References: <20200221115050.238976-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20200221115050.238976-2-satyat@google.com>
 <20200221170434.GA438@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200221170434.GA438@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:04:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Given that blk_ksm_get_slot_for_key returns a signed keyslot that
> can return errors, and the only callers stores it in a signed variable
> I think this function should take a signed slot as well, and the check
> for a non-negative slot should be moved here from the only caller.

Actually looking over the code again I think it might be better to
return only the error code (and that might actually be a blk_status_t),
and then use an argument to return a pointer to the actual struct
keyslot.  That gives us much easier to understand code and better
type safety.