On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:36:14AM -0700, Scott Bauer wrote:
>
> I want some further clarification, if you don't mind. We call sec_ops
> inside the actual logic for the opal code. Which is only accessible via the
> ioctls, is that what you were meaning? When you say "the driver calls"
> do you mean that the nvme/sata/et al drivers would implement some generic
> block sed function that would be called via ioctl?
> So the call chain would be:
>
> Userland
> block/ioctl ops->blkdev_sed()
>
> nvme/et al (implements blkdev_sed()) which calls:
>
> sed.c blkdev_sed_ioctl(with passed in combined fn to get data to controller)?
>
> Is this what you were thinking, if so I agree it will alleviate a bunch of clutter
> in block/ioctl.c. If this isn't what you were thinking please let me know.
Similar, but not quite the same. We already have an ioctl method in
struct block_device_operations, so in that we'd do something like
this for nvme:
case IOC_SED_FOO:
...
case IOC_SED_BAR:
return blkdev_sed_ioctl(bdev, mode, cmd, arg,
ctrl, nvme_sec_submit);
Or maybe even shortcut the list of ioctl with something like this
before the main switch statement:
if (is_sed_ioctl(cmd)) {
return blkdev_sed_ioctl(bdev, mode, cmd, arg,
ctrl, nvme_sec_submit);
}
> > - talking about lib/sed*.c - I'd move it to block/
>
> I don't have any reservations about this but from a learning standpoint, why
> block/ instead of lib/ ?
Because it's code related to block devices, and it looks like it's
tied pretty deeply into block device semantics.
> If we go with what I described above I'm not sure if we'll even need
> blkdev_sec_capable. If the driver(nvme/etc) implements blkdev_sed then we know it's
> capable?
Indeed, even better.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
