On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:23:46PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> fscrypt_is_bounce_folio() is the equivalent of fscrypt_is_bounce_page()
> and fscrypt_pagecache_folio() is the equivalent of fscrypt_pagecache_page().
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/fscrypt.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fscrypt.h b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> index 4f5f8a651213..c2c07d36fb3a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> @@ -273,6 +273,16 @@ static inline struct page *fscrypt_pagecache_page(struct page *bounce_page)
> return (struct page *)page_private(bounce_page);
> }
>
> +static inline bool fscrypt_is_bounce_folio(struct folio *folio)
> +{
> + return folio->mapping == NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct folio *fscrypt_pagecache_folio(struct folio *bounce_folio)
> +{
> + return bounce_folio->private;
> +}
ext4_bio_write_folio() is still doing:
bounce_page = fscrypt_encrypt_pagecache_blocks(&folio->page, ...);
Should it be creating a "bounce folio" instead, or is that not in the scope of
this patchset?
- Eric
