From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965159AbbEMCC5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2015 22:02:57 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:32498 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964909AbbEMCCz (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2015 22:02:55 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2DhBwBysFJV//DOLHlcgw+BMrMnAQEBAQEBBplWBAICgTdNAQEBAQEBgQuEIQEBBDocIxAIAxgJJQ8FJQMhE4gryGcBAQgCIBiFfoUjhQUHhC0FnTiWbiNhgVmBTywxgkYBAQE Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:02:08 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] f2fs crypto: declare some definitions for f2fs encryption feature Message-ID: <20150513020208.GK15721@dastard> References: <1431145253-2019-1-git-send-email-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <1431145253-2019-3-git-send-email-jaegeuk@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1431145253-2019-3-git-send-email-jaegeuk@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > This definitions will be used by inode and superblock for encyption. How much of this crypto stuff is common with or only slightly modified from the ext4 code? Is the behaviour and features the same? Is the user API and management tools the same? IMO, if there is any amount of overlap, then we should be implementing this stuff as generic code, not propagating the same code through multiple filesystems via copy-n-paste-n-modify. This will simply end up with diverging code, different bugs and feature sets, and none of the implementations will get the review and maintenance they really require... And, FWIW, this is the reason why I originally asked for the ext4 encryption code to be pulled up to the VFS: precisely so we didn't end up with a rapid proliferation of individual in-filesystem encryption implementations that are all slightly different... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com