From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754194AbcCZUzn (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:55:43 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:34168 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753855AbcCZUzk (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:55:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:55:35 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Eric Biggers , Jaegeuk Kim , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List , Michael Halcrow Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6 Message-ID: <20160326205535.GE4539@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Linus Torvalds , Eric Biggers , Jaegeuk Kim , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List , Michael Halcrow References: <20160320225859.GA5047@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160321184520.GA8199@jaegeuk.gateway> <20160326061007.GA24620@zzz> <20160326085606.GA41603@jaegeuk.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20160326134748.GA971@zzz> <20160326204125.GD4539@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:48:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > BTW, as far as switching ext4 to use the shared code in fs/crypto --- > > I'm hoping to get that done for the next merge window. There are a 2 > > or 3 patches to fix some recently discovered bugs that I'll need to > > push into the fs/crypto code, but I'll take care of that for the next > > development cycle. > > No worries. Considering this mistake (which happily seems to have an > innocent explanation for it) it would be good to have it verified that > the shared code does actually work for you, so that we don't end up in > the unhappy situation that the code got split up in order to be > shared, but some random detail choice then made it not actually work > for ext4 after all.. Oh, for sure. One of the things I plan to do is to make sure that a file system created using the *current* ext4 encryption code is properly readable using the new fs/crypto code. I'll also run a full regression test run using xfstests as well. That's one of the reasons why I wasn't going to even try to get it done for this merge window (even if you weren't going to be closing the merge window tomorrow). I just didn't have the time to do a good job, and it made sense to let the f2fs code go in first, and then convert ext4 afterwards. - Ted