From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:54872 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751292AbcCAR7a (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:59:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:59:27 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Chris Mason , Tomasz Torcz , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption Message-ID: <20160301175927.GA32354@infradead.org> References: <1456848492-4814-1-git-send-email-anand.jain@oracle.com> <20160301162952.GB718307@mother.pipebreaker.pl> <20160301164616.dbbeuzccfkzupign@floor.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20160301164616.dbbeuzccfkzupign@floor.thefacebook.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:16AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > We'll definitely move in line with the common API over time. Thanks > Anand for starting this! > > I'd prefer that we keep it per-subvolume for now, just because > subvolumes are so cheap and because it seems like a better collection > point for general use. But as the other filesystems add features we'll > make sure and keep parity with what users expect. We already have per-file encryption in f2fs and ext4, and both have a compatible userspace API and ABI. It would be a pitty to deviate from that intead of reusing it, and if needed extending it.