From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Subject: Re: fs requirements for loop device?
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:13:19 -0700
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <3CE0569F.E91CB2F8@zip.com.au>
References: <3CE0509B.478F6D18@zip.com.au> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0205131956490.1545-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Urban Widmark <urban@teststation.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Alexander Viro wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > If this code is trying to actually do something legitimate
> > then clearly it is doing it wrongly.  Just delete the locking
> > I think.
> >
> > This is a big improvement to loop.  Let's try to get
> > this into 2.4.20.
> 
> Let's not.  At least try to look what does lo_read_actor() do.

the crypto side of things can be handled by not performing
the encryption in-place, yes?