On Thursday 07 June 2018 02:53 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/6/18 1:35 AM, Ladvine D Almeida wrote: >> On Friday 01 June 2018 09:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:43:09PM +0100, Ladvine D Almeida wrote: >>>> This patch introduces new variable under bio structure to >>>> facilitate inline encryption. This variable is used to >>>> associate I/O requests to crypto information. >>> This seems to be missing a whole lot of context. Where is the whole >>> series showing what you are trying to do? >>> >> Christoph, >> >> The patches are generated in the below > manner, with a thought of >> sending separately to the MAINTAINERS responsible for each. > What both Christoph and I have said is that it's _impossible_ to review > changes when you don't know what is being built on top of it. The block > change, by itself, is utterly useless. The use case needs to be seen. > But apart from that, my comments on why it's doing it completely > backwards still apply, and I've outlined how you need to fix it. The > patch, in its current form, isn't going anywhere. > Jens, Since there are implementation level concerns on both device mapper layer and block layer, I will investigate more and work on those lines. I can send the full patch series to the relevant maintainers after addressing the issues. Regards, Ladvine
