From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chandan Rajendra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Consolidate Post read processing code Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:59:48 +0530 Message-ID: <2497291.Oz6HVsdQeZ@localhost.localdomain> References: <20190218100433.20048-1-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190219211715.GA12177@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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 1gwoSA-0007Em-K4 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:54 +0000 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]) by sfi-mx-3.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1gwoS8-005VuN-LP for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:54 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1LDUjls041194 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:46 -0500 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qsuv4u4mv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:45 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:40 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20190219211715.GA12177@gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Eric Biggers Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:47:16 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > Hi Chandan, > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > This patchset moves the "post read processing" code into a file of its > > own and gets the generic do_mpage_readpge() to make use of the > > functionality provided. With these changes in place, the patchset > > changes Ext4 to use mpage_readpage[s] instead of its own custom > > ext4_readpages() function. This is done to reduce duplicity of code > > across filesystems. Based on the reviews provided for this patchset, I > > will change F2FS to use mpage_readpage[s] and post the next version of > > this patchset to linux-fsdevel mailing list. > > > > The patchset also includes patches from previous postings i.e. > > patches to replace per-filesystem encryption config options with a > > single config option that affects all filesystems making use of > > fscrypt code. > > > > Chandan Rajendra (10): > > ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > > f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > > fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option > > Consolidate "post read processing" into a new file > > fsverity: Add call back to decide if verity check has to be performed > > Introduce REQ_POST_READ_PROC bio flag > > fsverity: Add call back to determine readpage limit > > fsverity: Add call back to verify file holes > > fs/mpage.c: Integrate post read processing > > ext4: Wire up ext4_readpage[s] to use mpage_readpage[s] > > > > Thanks for working on this! This will also make it much easier to support > block_size != PAGE_SIZE in ext4 encryption, right? I think this is the best > path forward, but I'll take a closer look at your new patches. > > FYI regarding practical matters, merging fs-verity was delayed due to > disagreement about the API. See https://lwn.net/Articles/775872/. > > We don't have to wait for fs-verity for your initial fscrypt changes, though: > > ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option > > So, a couple weeks ago Ted and I already queued those three patches in > fscrypt.git (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/fscrypt.git > branch "master", though we plan to change the repo soon) for the upcoming merge > window, based on upstream rather than fs-verity. Are you fine with that? Yes, the changes looks good. Thanks for queueing them up. > > I also suggest adding linux-fsdevel to the Cc given the fs/*.c changes. Yes, I will do that. > > Thanks! > > - Eric > > -- chandan