Hi Chandan, On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This patchset moves the "post read processing" code into a file of its > own and gets the generic do_mpage_readpge() to make use of the > functionality provided. With these changes in place, the patchset > changes Ext4 to use mpage_readpage[s] instead of its own custom > ext4_readpages() function. This is done to reduce duplicity of code > across filesystems. Based on the reviews provided for this patchset, I > will change F2FS to use mpage_readpage[s] and post the next version of > this patchset to linux-fsdevel mailing list. > > The patchset also includes patches from previous postings i.e. > patches to replace per-filesystem encryption config options with a > single config option that affects all filesystems making use of > fscrypt code. > > Chandan Rajendra (10): > ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option > Consolidate "post read processing" into a new file > fsverity: Add call back to decide if verity check has to be performed > Introduce REQ_POST_READ_PROC bio flag > fsverity: Add call back to determine readpage limit > fsverity: Add call back to verify file holes > fs/mpage.c: Integrate post read processing > ext4: Wire up ext4_readpage[s] to use mpage_readpage[s] > Thanks for working on this! This will also make it much easier to support block_size != PAGE_SIZE in ext4 encryption, right? I think this is the best path forward, but I'll take a closer look at your new patches. FYI regarding practical matters, merging fs-verity was delayed due to disagreement about the API. See https://lwn.net/Articles/775872/. We don't have to wait for fs-verity for your initial fscrypt changes, though: ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option So, a couple weeks ago Ted and I already queued those three patches in fscrypt.git (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/fscrypt.git branch "master", though we plan to change the repo soon) for the upcoming merge window, based on upstream rather than fs-verity. Are you fine with that? I also suggest adding linux-fsdevel to the Cc given the fs/*.c changes. Thanks! - Eric
|