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 <dste...@suse.com> --- 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 b2c26beffd82..953473f2a136 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html