From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:55:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20160326205535.GE4539@thunk.org> References: <20160320225859.GA5047@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160321184520.GA8199@jaegeuk.gateway> <20160326061007.GA24620@zzz> <20160326085606.GA41603@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160326134748.GA971@zzz> <20160326204125.GD4539@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ajvFL-0005G1-Ih for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:55:47 +0000 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1ajvFI-0004lV-CC for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:55:47 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Eric Biggers , Michael Halcrow , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Jaegeuk Kim On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:48:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > BTW, as far as switching ext4 to use the shared code in fs/crypto --- > > I'm hoping to get that done for the next merge window. There are a 2 > > or 3 patches to fix some recently discovered bugs that I'll need to > > push into the fs/crypto code, but I'll take care of that for the next > > development cycle. > > No worries. Considering this mistake (which happily seems to have an > innocent explanation for it) it would be good to have it verified that > the shared code does actually work for you, so that we don't end up in > the unhappy situation that the code got split up in order to be > shared, but some random detail choice then made it not actually work > for ext4 after all.. Oh, for sure. One of the things I plan to do is to make sure that a file system created using the *current* ext4 encryption code is properly readable using the new fs/crypto code. I'll also run a full regression test run using xfstests as well. That's one of the reasons why I wasn't going to even try to get it done for this merge window (even if you weren't going to be closing the merge window tomorrow). I just didn't have the time to do a good job, and it made sense to let the f2fs code go in first, and then convert ext4 afterwards. - Ted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351&iu=/4140 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:55:35 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Eric Biggers , Jaegeuk Kim , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List , Michael Halcrow Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6 Message-ID: <20160326205535.GE4539@thunk.org> References: <20160320225859.GA5047@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160321184520.GA8199@jaegeuk.gateway> <20160326061007.GA24620@zzz> <20160326085606.GA41603@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160326134748.GA971@zzz> <20160326204125.GD4539@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:48:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > BTW, as far as switching ext4 to use the shared code in fs/crypto --- > > I'm hoping to get that done for the next merge window. There are a 2 > > or 3 patches to fix some recently discovered bugs that I'll need to > > push into the fs/crypto code, but I'll take care of that for the next > > development cycle. > > No worries. Considering this mistake (which happily seems to have an > innocent explanation for it) it would be good to have it verified that > the shared code does actually work for you, so that we don't end up in > the unhappy situation that the code got split up in order to be > shared, but some random detail choice then made it not actually work > for ext4 after all.. Oh, for sure. One of the things I plan to do is to make sure that a file system created using the *current* ext4 encryption code is properly readable using the new fs/crypto code. I'll also run a full regression test run using xfstests as well. That's one of the reasons why I wasn't going to even try to get it done for this merge window (even if you weren't going to be closing the merge window tomorrow). I just didn't have the time to do a good job, and it made sense to let the f2fs code go in first, and then convert ext4 afterwards. - Ted