From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0929C282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B692067D; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lists.sourceforge.net header.i=@lists.sourceforge.net header.b="IMUcSKhs"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="jTZHXNAc"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="lJlR18bv"; dkim=neutral (0-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="U3nfmbMH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A2B692067D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lists.sourceforge.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.sourceforge.net; s=beta; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc: Reply-To:From:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Subject:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:To:Date:Sender:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=oT8/Lv/txkaewwtN/xtClYllbRYv+fAmuDvyyAtQ/i0=; b=IMUcSKhsMkqB7XbW7qB5zKzby Lsul6efwv+OD1Suf0feHKeoMFYf7mjQT/lMbB6E7vHtksuZZ7bQ32S+XWUBg/cccDgQX0aipBNtBX sszUDCFJw/QsqZ+YBaOQlxqn+p5vkf91EbE9jST5M2vTsLtTBarjzRLwzcV97Apat8f8o=; Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipGPr-00039o-9q; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:50:51 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipGPp-00039M-Rg for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:50:49 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GqM7/Gox89N6RYmX8N+C+JYNDY9Y92t5hXeig9A+0NE=; b=jTZHXNAcd+SZ3gyBpPG8WB1GOh SKhaqFGkFaXhbIMfO7ohPdKfrZBneabntu0G1O3nnTE3EnDO6dcLL8deHN6829hr8wC1VRH+pT1zG CII6YxA9l850FmSBTCIhY14pB8Fz2yCLfvyHazoFaKh4m/cGJBvY14zuew1iLG9lqPyI=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GqM7/Gox89N6RYmX8N+C+JYNDY9Y92t5hXeig9A+0NE=; b=lJlR18bvnJH78pUNBu0aDgjiLd k088FduCX8PMKc2oaJoyO2tHHXHNFNW0A7K5ZQ+x/EP3BVGPnkZvxg04zW7XaK8aZ0njHpVTGx6cj 3L5zoDbjXMNl2+R9Mum4RLSsagi58SaMMFRpuRnNf8FyYntapoyjJ/At1ch9KlepJfzo=; Received: from mail-pj1-f65.google.com ([209.85.216.65]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1ipGPj-00DhYD-2v for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:50:44 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-f65.google.com with SMTP id s94so95872pjc.1 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:50:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GqM7/Gox89N6RYmX8N+C+JYNDY9Y92t5hXeig9A+0NE=; b=U3nfmbMHq/W60Cggp7RJIO+vjwZF+eOByq0zw2NdD3Ar4SSHaOIVputw0PVblX2/o4 rGuycl8hULEeLa76n6VKtiejtrAZxV2ip7LKG2pkIUppk7kP+nYsoJH8PIA2ERd6eHZF 7kg8c8oxe1HfsuNiPK04ZvCZVI7p4MrF4wrplzGBHJ7+0t7oRiI5MUorB0njq6uxH/p4 g3w3/0xI8Flgn5SK4qw2rmZOVRk4uCUJbVGYc+4YUDe02CHqfod56+BNdpYqpkr4u4Ju QWRtvYtE+1qc0bdsIr5YDGmM3klH/1hIseMl+g3jErzlysuBDR4N36fNB1+B3orn9fso nn7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GqM7/Gox89N6RYmX8N+C+JYNDY9Y92t5hXeig9A+0NE=; b=F+4P835OXRFOLqA+I4EF5ar/hdGDC/tNb8NaQPMkwmemsLta2HMCocR7KUE706PpLs xdCFxzBD++hfA7A8HNU1xzO3RxiBE4D8byu/41jsXh+HQlBt+iGvpUk+nV7YuYxKfk6y kjSNRv+298WQt2mrChLvva7P6vmZ3n9HqkAWNGMw2tAKBG/qRrk6IL0ZSRc8NiIYXqUd qph3S2MHHfiiTN+3YXXBxV6vBl7uA3BfUR4EP7RPzQTaWfL2skPw66e/9m/uWZM2W2PW MJvNSNvTPeJYlqOgZAbXqbpEmH9Rv1KwmunSyWYsud0Lsq5BEFqDguFbfNYmpfj2haTC lQGA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWuSheNNCXF0OnfWyaU7TDjU6b+nG0w8HF9iyXLJZOYVCtwVM5f SLcxNdgYmuDc2r7fZJ4ZlM3FSA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwLsrqAQku6UEZ+m75sX13ln6fLUNoETR2ZmPckprU0bqTzke9nFnndvHW2jpMVg425OyWE3w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:480a:: with SMTP id a10mr14637pjh.88.1578508990909; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:201:0:7f8c:9d6e:20b8:e324]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm4734645pfb.139.2020.01.08.10.43.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:43:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:43:05 -0800 To: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20200108184305.GA173657@google.com> References: <20191218145136.172774-1-satyat@google.com> <20200108140556.GB2896@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200108140556.GB2896@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Headers-End: 1ipGPj-00DhYD-2v Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v6 0/9] Inline Encryption Support X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Satya Tangirala via Linux-f2fs-devel Reply-To: Satya Tangirala Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Kim Boojin , Kuohong Wang , Barani Muthukumaran , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:05:56AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I haven't been able to deep dive into the details, but the structure > of this still makes me very unhappy. > > Most of it is related to the software fallback again. Please split the > fallback into a separate file, and also into a separate data structure. > There is abslutely no need to have the overhead of the software only > fields for the hardware case. > The fallback actually is in a separate file, and the software only fields are not allocated in the hardware case anymore, either - I should have made that clear(er) in the coverletter. > On the counter side I think all the core block layer code added should > go into a single file instead of split into three with some odd > layering. > Alright, I'll look into this. I still think that the keyslot manager should maybe go in a separate file because it does a specific, fairly self contained task and isn't just block layer code - it's the interface between the device drivers and any upper layer. > Also what I don't understand is why this managed key-slots on a per-bio > basis. Wou;dn't it make a whole lot more sense to manage them on a > struct request basis once most of the merging has been performed? I don't immediately see an issue with making it work on a struct request basis. I'll look into this more carefully. Thanks! Satya _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel