The FS_*_FL flags cannot be easily identified by a prefix but we still
need to recognize them so the 'fsflags' should be closer to the naming
scheme but again the 'fs' part sounds like it's a filesystem flag. I
don't have a better idea for now.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index e93dc3a6f554..0b84f9e68f86 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ static int btrfs_ioctl_getflags(struct file *file, void __user *arg)
return 0;
}
-static int check_flags(unsigned int flags)
+/* Check if @flags are a supported and valid set of FS_*_FL flags */
+static int check_fsflags(unsigned int flags)
{
if (flags & ~(FS_IMMUTABLE_FL | FS_APPEND_FL | \
FS_NOATIME_FL | FS_NODUMP_FL | \
@@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ static int btrfs_ioctl_setflags(struct file *file, void __user *arg)
if (copy_from_user(&flags, arg, sizeof(flags)))
return -EFAULT;
- ret = check_flags(flags);
+ ret = check_fsflags(flags);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
2.16.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
